Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
One of the things that keeps me awake at night is how we ensure that people are protected—the most vulnerable and rural communities in particular—as we transition from the copper network to fibre. That is why I was glad that, in November last year, I was able to get all the network operators to sign up to a new code of conduct that will, I think, provide precisely that protection.
Markus Campbell-Savours
Dominic’s aortic aneurysm burst at his rural home five years ago. With no phone signal in their stone-built house, it was a 50-minute landline call to emergency services that helped his wife keep him alive while they waited for an ambulance. As Dominic waits for more open heart surgery, can the Minister reassure his family that we are doing all we can to mitigate the risks to him and other vulnerable people during power cuts?
Chris Bryant
I certainly can. I send my best wishes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. He said that it is a stone-built house; he is absolutely right that there are particular difficulties with mobile signal in stone-built houses—I live in one myself, in Porth in the Rhondda. One thing that we have done recently, as a result of the pressure that I have put on people, is to ensure that the battery back-up power is not just the Ofcom-guaranteed one-hour minimum, but considerably longer, and that is what lots of the operators are now providing.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
What awareness is there in very rural areas where there is not great broadband coverage and very poor indoor mobile phone coverage—sometimes no coverage at all—of the effect of this change, particularly in places where there are frequent and sometimes extended power cuts? When can we expect a full national awareness campaign?
Chris Bryant
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments—I am glad that he is expressing an interest in this issue. He took part in a Westminster Hall debate on it only a few weeks ago, when I was a bit grumpy with him, for which I apologise. He makes some good points. He may not be aware of the campaign, which is already up and running, so obviously the awareness campaign needs to do a bit more work to make him aware of the awareness.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Rural broadband coverage simply is not good enough.
Steff Aquarone
Many rural villages in my constituency still suffer from poor broadband access, with no clear date for when it will get better and more demands for huge expenditure to get them connected to the network. I think particularly of residents in Banningham, who have suffered from poor broadband access for years and feel they are at the bottom of the pile. In Finland, the broadband roll-out started with the hardest-to-reach properties and reached inwards, tackling the biggest challenges first. Does the Minister agree that a roll-out strategy like that, rather than one that goes for the easiest properties first, would have served those communities better and faster?
Chris Bryant
The largest chunk of broadband delivery will be done on a commercial basis by the private sector. We do not want to do with taxpayers’ money what could probably be done by the commercial sector. I did not catch the name of the village that the hon. Member referred to. I am not sure whether he has been to one of my Building Digital UK drop-in sessions, but if he needs further information for that particular village, I would be very happy to try to sort it.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
In my constituency, residents of the rurally isolated community of Balquhidder did not wait for a major provider; they dug and laid 34 km of fibre optic cable themselves using the Government’s broadband voucher scheme to partner with a small business and deliver gigabit broadband—a remarkable achievement. That success is now at risk, however, because for well over a year the Government payment processes have been struggling to engage with the volunteer-led project. Will the Minister meet me to help resolve that, and will he join me on a visit to the beautiful Balquhidder glen to see at first hand what that resourceful and determined community have delivered?
Chris Bryant
Everybody tells me that Balquhidder is very beautiful—in fact, my hon. Friend told me earlier this morning. I would be interested in a visit if it were also possible to visit the new film studio that I think might be coming to his constituency. Stirling is one matter, but Strathallan and the very wide rural areas in his constituency are different. I would be very happy to try to sort out the specific issues that he has in Balquhidder.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is important that we have the right data on which places are missing out. That is why, as I have said before, I am desperate to ensure that, if people check Ofcom’s online announcements on coverage in their area, it matches their lived experience. I can announce that Ofcom will be radically changing its online coverage network system. I have placed a letter in the Library today between myself and Ofcom which lays out when we will do that in June.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I welcome the investment in my constituency from Project Gigabit’s £157 million deal to upgrade Scotland’s broadband. The remote jobs market opens up employment opportunities for those who live outside the major cities. However, several constituents from more rural areas around Bridgend, Armadale, Bo’ness and Bathgate have told me that they have lost out on opportunities for flexible working, and even lost jobs due to poor connectivity. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that they will not lose out on future opportunities because of where they live?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: in a digital world, we cannot have some people engaged and who have the connectivity they need while others do not, because that simply will not drive forward economic growth in this country. She makes a very fair point, and yes I can give that guarantee.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank the Minister for his response. During my recent visit to the Nailsea & Backwell disabled access café, I had the privilege of meeting remarkable residents such as Alison. A recurring theme emerged about accessing Government services, which often assumes internet access and capability. What additional measures is the Department implementing to ensure that everyone in North Somerset, particularly those with disabilities or limited digital skills, can access vital Government forms and assistance in formats that truly work for them?
Chris Bryant
There are so many parts of delivering our public services where we can improve productivity if we manage to do so on a digital basis. I am conscious that, for example, a Doncaster hospital still employs 42 people just to carry around physical medical records. That is clearly nonsense and we need to change it. My hon Friend is absolutely right: if we go to a digital future we must be able to take everyone with us. That must mean that non-digital options should be available to those who are not able to take up digital options.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My constituent John wrote to me to highlight the slow and weak internet connectivity in Boyatt Wood. Meanwhile, constituents who live in the centre of Eastleigh regularly struggle to get online. Does the Minister agree that all my constituents deserve access to fast and reliable broadband? What assurances can he give them that that is a priority for the Government?
Chris Bryant
I would argue that her constituents have a right not only to good broadband—if the hon. Lady wants to come to one of my Building Digital UK drop-in sessions she would be very welcome; we can go through street by street if necessary—but to mobile connectivity. I bet there are people in her constituency, as there are in every constituency in the land, who see on the Ofcom checker that they have a perfect signal and know that they do not. That is one thing that I am changing with the deal I have done with Ofcom.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
There are some really good examples of the delivery of innovative products that provide access in remote and rural areas and some good small-scale providers, but in the Cairngorms national park area a provider recently unexpectedly ceased the service. Consumers have been left out on a limb, so is it time to put in place, as with the energy system, consumer protection should a provider fail to provide a service?
Chris Bryant
I have long thought that digital connectivity is now akin to a connection to electricity, water or any other public utility. That is how we should treat the law, and I think that would assist the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The Government are committed to supporting innovation in Hertfordshire and across the country, and we are investing a record £20.4 billion in research and development this financial year alone. In the last financial year, UK Research and Innovation invested £67 million in projects in Hertfordshire. For example, more than £650,000 was awarded to Copco Ltd, which is based in Hemel Hempstead, to develop a digitally enhanced low-cost technology in aerostructures.
David Taylor
I was fortunate enough to visit the British Standards Institution in Hemel Hempstead recently to see its work helping businesses to deliver better products and drive towards a more sustainable planet. Its research shows that 78% of UK companies increase turnover and productivity because of the BSI’s standards. What steps are the Government taking to support more companies to adopt and certify standards, such as the BSI’s AI management systems standards, so that we can grow the UK tech sector and enable innovation and collaboration safely and securely?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; it shows how diligently and assiduously he is working for the businesses in his constituency. I can assure him that high standards lead to their adoption, and this Government are committed to the very highest of standards. I saw that myself on visits to Hertfordshire: I visited Airbus and the tech firm Autolus, which are both doing cutting-edge work to the highest of standards, contributing to innovation in our country as well as the area that he represents so well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is right that such work is helping not just Hertfordshire but everywhere else. He has been a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and has taken a specific interest in cyber-security there. Has he had the opportunity to interact with companies in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can benefit from the expansion of the cyber-security industry?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that I have a personal commitment to Northern Ireland, which I recently visited for the second time. This Government are committed to cyber-security right across the United Kingdom. The budgets for it and their application are subject to Barnett consequentials. I know that he will be working with the devolved Administration to ensure that that money is spent wisely, and in central Government they will have the partner they need.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
DSIT works closely with other Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to align AI energy demand with future energy planning to ensure long-term sustainability. We understand that AI is an energy-hungry technology, which is why we have set up the AI energy council. Through that council, we are assessing ways to address the growing energy demands of AI and AI sustainability, including by exploring bold clean energy solutions, from next generation renewables to small modular reactors.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
We know that AI has the power to transform civilisation, but its huge drain on the environment is a problem. For example, ChatGPT has an estimated 57 million daily users, but for every five to 50 questions it is asked, 500 ml of water are used to cool down its data centres. The Minister has explained some of the work that is being done and I understand that the AI energy council is looking at energy solutions to align the Government’s AI ambitions with our net zero goals, but with the increased incidence of drought and the overall climate emergency, what steps are the Government taking specifically to manage water consumption and sustainability with their AI ambitions?
Feryal Clark
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that AI development aligns with sustainability goals. We welcome the advances in cooling technologies, such as dry cooling and closed-loop systems, in addition to promoting the use of renewable energy resources. I chair the AI Ministers group, which brings together Ministers from all Departments to co-ordinate cross-cutting challenges, including water consumption.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The astonishingly successful GrowUp vertical agriculture project in Sandwich, in my constituency, is highly dependent on data, which could be hugely assisted by artificial intelligence. I understand that agriculture is not represented on any of the working parties. Will the Minister seek to ensure that agriculture is included and possibly find time to visit the project?
Feryal Clark
As I have set out, we have inter-ministerial meetings that bring Ministers together, including Ministers from DEFRA. The Secretary of State regularly meets representatives from the National Farmers Union and other Secretaries of State to discuss these issues.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary on the UK-US trade deal, which, among many provisions, includes the commitment to deepen digital trade. My Department will continue to work across Whitehall to strengthen the transatlantic trade relationship that benefits our country so greatly. When it comes to online harms, we will continue to strengthen those provisions too.
Mr Morrison
Many of my constituents have contacted me with concerns around social media and public health. Nearly 40% of children report that social media has a negative impact on their mental health and, with glaring holes in the Online Safety Act 2023, dangerous smaller websites remain unregulated. Can the Secretary of State confirm that protections for children will not be up for negotiation in any deal with the United States?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for that question. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for the welfare of young people online, which is why so many provisions have been brought in since I came into office, including issuing a statement of strategic priorities to Ofcom, tackling intimate image abuse and getting right behind the implementation of the new regulations from January and age verification, which will come in in July. We are behind those as well as working on what will come next and strengthening it. I reassure him and the House that online harms are never up for negotiation under this Government.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I really welcome the US-UK trade deal and the fact that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister kept their commitment not to put online safety on the table in those negotiations. My Committee’s inquiry into social media misinformation and algorithms has heard evidence that the algorithms in social media drive the spread of misinformation, and we saw the consequences of that in the summer riots. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as well as not watering down the Online Safety Act, he will look to strengthen it and is discussing how to do so with our allies in the US?
Peter Kyle
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am looking very closely at how we strengthen the online safety regime in order to protect children further into the future. I have commissioned research into the exact causal relationship between which products young people use and the impact that they have on them, and I will act accordingly from there.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Given the growing concerns around the Online Safety Act, which could be weakened during UK-US trade negotiations, and reports that the Secretary of State is meeting repeatedly with tech giants, including Amazon, Google and Meta, it is vital that children’s safety remains a red line in both our trade policy and our ongoing, evolving data protection framework. I welcome the comments that he made around the fact that online harms will not be up for negotiation, but can he confirm that the Online Safety Act will not be up for negotiation in the UK-US trade deal now or in the future?
Peter Kyle
We have just delivered a deal between the UK and the US, and none of it weakened any of the legislation we have that keeps children safe in this country. We were promised by the Conservatives that we were at the front of the queue for a US trade deal; this Government took us out of the queue altogether and delivered the deal. The previous Government took a decade; we delivered the deal, and we are strengthening the rights that young people have to keep them safe, not weakening them.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
This Government are piloting a range of technologies, including generative AI and large language models, across Departments in order to release their potential to boost public sector productivity. We are aiming for a smarter, smaller state, and that is exactly what we will deliver.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Government are rightly focused on driving public sector reforms through the smarter use of technology, and in Basingstoke we have seen what is possible. ICS.AI has already helped Derby city council to save millions of pounds using AI. GemaSecure, another local firm, is developing home-grown tech to help to protect vital infrastructure from cyber-threats, and TBSC has produced software to reduce costs wasted on unused IT subscriptions by up to 25%. Will the Secretary of State join me in Basingstoke to meet those firms and others to discuss how his Department can work with them to help to achieve our mission of building a more efficient, secure and modern public sector?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is highlighting the great work coming out of Basingstoke, which will not just contribute to the productivity of local authorities around the country but benefit our entire economy. I can assure him that this Government are committed to harnessing the power of British technology, putting it to use for citizens across our country and for productivity in Government, and I look forward to engaging more with the companies he has mentioned.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The use of AI in radiotherapy planning increases productivity twentyfold, yet the Government’s decision to stop funding for AI contouring is estimated to cost waiting lists half a million extra days. Will the Secretary of State intervene and talk to his friends in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that they restore that funding and save lives?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are investing heavily in AI technology across the NHS for the benefit of patients. I have visited Huddersfield hospital, where AI has been fully integrated into the radiography department. I will look into the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and if there are any conversations to be had, I can assure him that we are on the side of patients and of harnessing technology for the good of patients.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Accurate data is important, particularly in the public sector—we will be voting on this later today. How will the Secretary of State measure his planned productivity improvements? How will he define success, and over what time period?
Peter Kyle
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are deploying technology to deliver productivity gains across Whitehall, which are starting now. We are investing heavily through the digital centre that we created in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and working intensively with Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We have already identified billions of pounds-worth of savings, which will be put to use within Government without delay for the benefit of citizens.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
This Government are harnessing the power of technology to create a smarter, smaller state. My Department is partnering with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to understand how AI can save taxpayers’ money and deliver the world-class public services that people deserve. At the same time, we are tearing down the barriers facing businesses that want to invest in Britain. Last month, we welcomed experts from across the energy and tech sectors to the first meeting of the AI energy council, at which we discussed how we can use clean energy to power our domestic AI sector and deliver strong growth and good jobs right across the country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I met Jess and Hannah from Aston Clinton in my constituency, who are doing brilliant work to encourage parents to delay giving their children smartphones. Responding on Second Reading of the safer phones Bill, the Minister for digital, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), agreed that excessive smartphone usage is detrimental to the physical, mental and spiritual health of young people, and confirmed that the Government intend to act in this area. Can the Secretary of State share what his next steps will be?
Peter Kyle
I agree with my hon. Friend; excessive smartphone use is detrimental to children, as it is to MPs across the House. I can assure her that I am commissioning evidence on the impact of social media use on children. I am looking particularly closely at the addictive nature of some of the algorithms being deployed, and at how we can act to keep children safe and benefit their welfare.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Labour has cancelled Britain’s new national supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh, damaging our research capability and economic growth. That project was fully funded by the Conservatives, and the university says that it will be a disaster if the cancellation is not reversed, so will the Government reinstate that supercomputer, or will it be another victim of the Chancellor’s failed economic experiment?
Peter Kyle
It surprises me that the hon. Gentleman continues down this path. One of the first decisions I had to take after becoming Secretary of State was how we deal with an unfunded commitment for hundreds of millions of pounds where the money never existed—the Treasury had not committed it. Not a single letter had gone to my Department from the Treasury, yet the previous Government spent years making verbal commitments. We will deliver a compute strategy that is fit for purpose, that will get our country where it needs to be—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not going to get everybody in, Secretary of State.
Alan Mak
That project was fully funded, and the Secretary of State knows it. While Labour cancels our tech investment, our competitors—the US, Germany and Japan—are all increasing theirs. Next month, the Chancellor will cut the Department’s budget in real terms, so can the Secretary of State tell us today whether he will allow the Treasury to cancel more investment in Britain’s future, or will he finally speak up for Britain’s vital tech sector?
Peter Kyle
We will release the compute strategy. That strategy will be fully funded and fully delivered—unlike under the Government, which the hon. Gentleman was part of, that let our country down.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are older people, and others for that matter, who either have no online access or do not have a smartphone, who would not be able to access things in a digital world. That is why we introduced a digital inclusion plan, and that is one of the key differences between a Labour Government and a Tory Government: they did not have any interest in digital inclusion and they did not have a plan for 10 years, and we brought one in.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the Speakers of Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Over the past week, we have secured a historic trade deal with India and a landmark agreement with the United States, protecting and creating British jobs, slashing tariffs and driving economic growth. We have also published a White Paper setting out how this Government will end the open borders experiment of the Conservatives, bringing net migration down, backing British workers and delivering fair control of our borders.
I know that the whole House will also want to mark the 40th anniversary of the Bradford City fire. We remember the victims of that devastating tragedy and celebrate the strength of the community.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lorraine Beavers
Fourteen years of Conservative cuts have stripped the Environment Agency of the resources and the staff it needs to properly deal with badly managed landfill sites blighting communities like mine. The Jameson Road landfill site in my constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood has been producing toxic stenches for more than a year now, causing nosebleeds, headaches, vomiting and breathing problems for my residents. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that the Environment Agency has the staff and resources to police such badly managed sites across the country, so that it can act swiftly and effectively to protect communities like mine?
The Prime Minister
I love the fact that when anyone says 14 years of a Conservative Government, Opposition Members all go, “Oh no.” That is how the country feels. Once again, a hard-working Labour MP is clearing up the mess that was left behind. My hon. Friend’s residents deserve far better, and we expect rapid improvements. We are closely monitoring air quality and will not hesitate to take further action. She is right that we must tackle rogue operators who blight our communities. That is why we have boosted Environment Agency funding by £188 million, alongside tough new rules on incinerators and commercial fly-tippers.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
If I may, Mr Speaker: Sir Roy Stone served 13 Chief Whips, and Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson. I would like to pay tribute to his extraordinary service and send my best wishes to his family.
Before we start, I would also like to say to the Prime Minister how horrified I was to hear about the attack on his family home. It is completely unacceptable, and I think I speak for the whole House when I say that it was an attack not just on him, but on all of us and on our democracy.
Yesterday we learned that unemployment is up 10% since the election. Why does the Prime Minister think unemployment is rising on his watch?
The Prime Minister
May I pay tribute to Roy Stone as well, and the service that was given to us in various capacities?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the attacks on me and my family, and many others for their kind messages in the past few days. The Leader of the Opposition messaged me pretty well straightaway, which I really do appreciate. She is absolutely right that it was an attack on all of us, on democracy and on the values that we stand for.
The right hon. Lady comes here every week to talk the country down. We have got 200,000 new jobs, record investment and four interest rates cuts—contrast that with the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget, inflation through the roof and a £22 billion black hole.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not sure that the Prime Minister even knew that employment was up, but there is no point in him blaming everyone else. The fact is that the Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic, more than doubled the personal allowance, left 4 million extra jobs, tackled the post-pandemic inflation spike, and left the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
Let us talk about what is happening today. Let us look at Beales, a 180-year-old department store in Dorset. It survived two world wars and the winter of discontent, but it could not survive this Labour Government. Beales is having what it calls a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale”. What does the Prime Minister have to say to all the people who have lost their jobs?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants to see job losses, but the right hon. Lady must be the only person left in the country who thinks that the economy was booming after the last Government. We have created new jobs, record investment and trade deals. The last Government tried to do the India deal for, I think, eight years and failed—we did that deal. They talked about a US deal—we did that deal. We also intend to get a stronger relationship with the EU.
This former Trade Minister must be the only former Trade Minister who is against all trade deals that boost our economy. She says she is against the India deal, even though it contains the same provisions that she put on the table; she is against the US deal, even though it saves thousands of jobs in car manufacturing; and most absurdly, she says she is going to rip up the EU deal when she has not even seen what is on the page. The Opposition have been reduced to this brain-rot: a once great political party is sliding into brain-dead oblivion.
Mrs Badenoch
I am very happy to welcome the Prime Minister’s tiny tariff deal, but the fact is that it has put us in a worse position than we were in in March. He should not over-egg the pudding.
Let us talk about how things are getting worse now. In every month of this year, household names like Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and Santander have cut staff numbers. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 100,000 fewer jobs than there were a year ago—and that was before the Prime Minister’s jobs tax, which will make things worse. Can he promise the House that by this time next year, unemployment will be lower than it is today?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. Lady just said “tiny tariff deal”. Can I suggest that she gets the train to Solihull, which takes two hours, and tells the workforce at Jaguar Land Rover, and their families and communities, that she would rip up the deal that protects their jobs? When she has done that, she might travel across to Scunthorpe and tell the steelworkers there that she is going to rip up the deal that saves their jobs; then, if she has time, she could go up to Scotland and tell the people at the whisky distilleries that she would rip up the deal that is creating 1,200 jobs for them, boosting their exports; and then she can come back here next week and tell us what reaction she got.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear a promise to get unemployment down, and that is because the Prime Minister knows things are going to get worse. This goes wider than businesses. Last week I met staff and patients at Farleigh hospice. They do fantastic work, but they need to find an additional £250,000 to pay the jobs tax. How does the Prime Minister suggest that Farleigh hospice—a charity that relies on donations—pays for his tax hike?
The Prime Minister
We have provided a £100 million boost for the sector, and children and young people’s hospices received £26 million of funding this year.
The right hon. Lady turns up every week to carp from the sidelines. She moans about what we had to do in the Budget to stabilise the economy, but she has not got the courage to stand there and say that she would reverse our decisions on national insurance contributions, and I know why: it is because she does not want to say she is against the £26 billion investment in our NHS, she does not want to say she is against the £1.2 billion more for our police, and she does not want to say she is against the £3.2 billion more for our schools. All the time, she does not have the courage of her convictions, and it shows that her criticism is totally confected.
Mrs Badenoch
I cannot believe the Prime Minister is still using that figure. We have had this very conversation at the Dispatch Box—he knows it is just capital spending. Either he is not paying attention or he is saying things to disguise what is going on. That money will not pay for the jobs tax. He knows that, and the hospices know it too.
The other people who know that things are getting worse are the five leading business groups in the UK. They say that his so-called Employment Rights Bill will be “deeply damaging” to growth. Does the Prime Minister accept that they are right, or does he believe that he knows better than business?
The Prime Minister
It is the same old Tories every time: better rights for workers are on the table, and they vote against them. Respect, dignity and protection at work are good for workers, good for the economy and good for growth.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to listen to business. We cannot have employment rights without employment. Labour always forgets that it is not Government that creates growth; it is business that creates growth. Businesses are closing, and they are blaming him and his Chancellor. There are 100,000 fewer jobs. Hospices, charities and nurseries are facing bills from the jobs tax that they cannot afford. Even the unions say workers are being thrown on the scrapheap, and all of this before his unemployment Bill makes hiring even more expensive. When will he admit that Labour isn’t working?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady says we should listen; she should listen to business—it is in favour of our trade deals. The India deal is a fantastic deal, with tariffs on cars cut to 10%, tariffs halved on whisky and gin, and £4.8 billion coming into our economy. What does she say she would do with the India deal? She wants to rip it up. The US deal saves thousands upon thousands of jobs. What does she want to do? She wants to rip it up. The EU deal will be good for our economy. She is not even going to wait to see what it says; she absurdly says she is going to rip it up. It is so unserious. She was even reduced last week to accusing the Indian Government of fake news—no wonder she did so badly as a Trade Secretary. The project for the Conservatives is over. They are sliding into oblivion; they are a dead party walking.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work with JLR and for standing up for the jobs in her constituency. The deal that we have agreed saves thousands of jobs in our car industry, securing the livelihoods of countless families. I have been up to JLR on a number of occasions, including last week. I know at first hand what it means for the workforce, their families and their communities—and the Leader of the Opposition says she would go and tell them that she is going to rip it up. She should go up there—[Interruption.] Well, she says she is going to go against it. What did the Reform leader say about JLR? He said JLR deserves to go bust. Shame on him! Labour is striking deals in the national interest.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On behalf of my party, may I offer heartfelt congratulations to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV? May I also offer our support to the Prime Minister and his family after the appalling arson attacks on his home? I echo his thanks to our brilliant police and firefighters.
Three years ago, the previous Government were faced with a choice. Their own Migration Advisory Committee told Ministers that recruiting more care workers required improved conditions, career progression and better pay, but the Conservatives chose not to do that and instead brought in large numbers of care workers from overseas. The carers looking after our loved ones in care homes should be thanked, not demonised. Will the Prime Minister now do the things that the Conservatives refused to do, starting with a higher minimum wage for carers?
The Prime Minister
May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about me and my family? I really appreciate it.
It is important that we have fair pay for care workers, and that is why we have put in place our fair pay agreement. This is the first of its type. It will be applied first to care workers to ensure that they get fair pay, but also a better framework for progression. As he will know, most people leaving care work are going to the NHS because of the pay and the ability to progress. Our fair pay agreements will deal with, making sure that in the future those jobs are more secure. I will just add a declaration of interest: my sister is a care worker—I know at first hand how important the work is and how difficult sometimes the situation facing them is.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. It is a good first step, but we will still see people earning more in Amazon warehouses and supermarkets than in care homes, and that will mean our loved ones going without the care they need.
Turning to the middle east, for more than 10 weeks Israeli forces have blocked food, water and medicine getting into Gaza. There is now a humanitarian catastrophe, with 2 million people at risk of famine and one in five facing starvation. Rather than ending this crisis, the Netanyahu Government are planning to seize all Gaza indefinitely. I know the Prime Minister will agree that the blockade of Gaza should end and I am sure he will agree that it would be appalling if Netanyahu proceeds with that escalation, but will he act now and pick up the phone to President Trump for a joint plan to recognise Palestine and get food, water and medicine into Gaza?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this, because the situation in Gaza is simply intolerable and getting worse. We are working with other leaders urgently to bring about the rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, which is desperately needed—obviously, alongside the release of hostages and getting back to a ceasefire—and that work is going on through my team 24/7. I do believe that that is the initial action that needs to be taken, but I still fundamentally believe that, however remote it may seem at the moment, the pathway to a two-state solution is the only way for settled and lasting peace in the middle east. We will continue with our allies to pursue that path.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Everyone enjoying our beautiful beaches, lakes and rivers is entitled to know that the water is clean and safe. That is why we are modernising outdated bathing water regulations, including more regular monitoring sites to reflect local demand. After years of failure by the Conservative party, we are acting through our plan for change with new powers to tackle pollution, including banning bonuses, jail terms for law-breaking bosses and real-time monitors of every sewage outlet.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. This Prime Minister once spoke of compassion and dignity for migrants and of defending free movement. Now he talks of islands of strangers and taking back control. Somebody here has to call this out. It seems that the only principle he consistently defends is whichever he last heard in a focus group. So I ask him: is there any belief he holds that survives a week in Downing Street?
The Prime Minister
Yes, the belief that she talks rubbish. Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I want to lead a country where we pull together and walk into the future as neighbours and as communities, not as strangers. The loss of control of migration by the last Government put all that at risk, and that is why we are fixing the system based on principles of control, selection and fairness.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; he has been a dedicated campaigner on this issue for a very long time. As he knows, 14 years of mismanagement by the Conservative party left councils on their knees, with a total failure to improve and update how councils are funded. Through £69 billion of funding this year and the upcoming multi-year settlement—the first in over a decade—we will give councils far greater certainty and stability. Our detailed funding review will create a fairer system to make sure that his constituents see strong, affordable local services.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Further evidence of the decline of the Tory party: they say that going to Ukraine at the weekend to try to secure peace for Ukraine, for the security and defence of Europe, is somehow the wrong priority. That conflict has already massively impacted people in this country through the cost of living crisis and energy. Ukraine, Europe and we deserve peace, and to live in peace.
Dealing with the bin strikes is a priority. We continue to call on Unite to suspend the strike immediately and bring the disruption to an end. We are supporting the council to ramp up the cleaning operation. We are now collecting over 1,100 tonnes of waste every day and continue to offer our support so that the backlog does not reappear.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; she is a powerful champion on this issue. Our principle is that every young person with special educational needs should receive the right support to succeed. We have immediately announced an additional £1 billion for high-needs funding, including almost £20 million for schools in Lancashire. We will support special schools, and deliver truly inclusive places and expertise in mainstream schools to help every child thrive.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
The situation is serious. The last Government lost control of the borders. We are taking powers—[Interruption.] This is precisely to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is the first Bill to give counter-terrorism-like powers to law enforcement, precisely so that we can get in before the crimes are committed and before people get to this country. This is the most far-reaching provision ever for law enforcement to defend and secure our borders. That is why it is extraordinary that he, of all people, voted against it, and sooner or later he is going to have to explain that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for leading the campaign to highlight the devastating impact of these crimes. For hard-working small businesses, tool theft is not just a violation; it can mean thousands of pounds of potential work lost, with a huge impact on businesses and families. We are investing more than £1.2 billion extra in policing, with 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers to focus on the crimes that impact on communities the most. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work, and I know the Justice Secretary will look at the details carefully.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is going through a quasi-judicial exercise, and I am therefore limited in what I can say. Let me do the best I can within those constraints. The project is going through its examination, where interested parties can and should put forward their views on the application. More broadly, as we drive forward renewable projects, the planning process is designed to ensure that impacts are carefully considered.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. and gallant Friend is right that our iron-clad support for Ukraine should go hand in hand with firing up our own defence industries, which means well-paid, secure jobs right across the country, including in Plymouth, and strengthening our national security. We reiterated our support for Ukraine in Kyiv last weekend, and I am proud that British industries are playing their part in supporting Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion. I will make sure that he meets the relevant Minister to discuss his proposal.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Only a few years ago, dealing with the climate challenge was a shared endeavour across this House. It is yet further evidence of how far the Conservatives have fallen that they cannot see the significance and importance of tackling one of the major challenges of our time. I think we should rise to that challenge, not be defeatist about it. It is further evidence, as far as I can see, that the Tory project is just finished.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this crucial issue. I know that Members across House will have their own personal and tragic experiences of suicide. We have launched a call for evidence on our men’s health strategy, which will improve men’s health in all parts of the country, including tackling devastatingly high suicide rates. We are also investing £26 million in new mental health crisis centres, funding talking therapies for 380,000 more people and recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member’s constituents have been badly let down by the previous Government’s empty promises, which were never going to be delivered. We have put the new hospitals programme on a sustainable financial footing and increased the NHS capital budget to record levels, so that we can address the backlog of critical maintenance, repairs and upgrades. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss that particular case.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a superb champion for energy security, driving down bills and the good secure jobs that renewables offer. Those on the Opposition Benches are climate defeatists—anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-investment—and they should try to peddle their policies to the tens of thousands of people in this country who work in renewables every single day. Those on the Opposition Benches do not think that Britain has the skills and they would deny us incredible opportunities. We are focused on securing billions in investment, creating tens of thousands of jobs and taking us off the rollercoaster of international fossil fuels.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My constituent Victor Franklin was made severely disabled after a savage dog attack left him with multiple amputations. Will the Prime Minister explain why pensioners, such as Victor, who become severely disabled after retirement are excluded from claiming personal independence payment and are instead limited to the lesser support of attendance allowance, and will he commit to reviewing that unfair rule?
The Prime Minister
May I extend my thoughts to Victor and the awful circumstances that the hon. Lady describes, which must be extremely challenging. We do have to reform the system because it is not working—I think there is general agreement about that—but the principles must be clear: we protect and secure those in need of protection and security; we help those who can work into work; and we believe that those who can work should work. We have to reform the current system to make it better, because what we have does not work.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be clear what the parties opposite voted against. Stronger statutory sick pay—they voted against. The right to guaranteed hours—they voted against. Protection from unfair dismissal—they voted against. Stronger protection for pregnant mothers—they voted against. A package worth £600 to the poorest workers in insecure work—they voted against. We are backing British workers; they vote against them at every turn.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Maternity services in Yeovil are due to shut on Monday, after a deeply flawed Care Quality Commission inspection in January, and are to be moved to Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, which does not have capacity for an extra 1,300 births a year. Although the closure is initially for six months, I have received no guarantee that the services will open again, which is creating huge fear. Will the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from the south-west to stop this decision?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this issue, which must be of concern. I am not across the details at this stage, but I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to get to the bottom of the issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jake Richards
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that unemployment has risen by 10% since the general election. That figure is completely and utterly incorrect. It is no wonder that George Osborne, the former Conservative Chancellor, has said that she has no economic plan if she cannot even get basic statistics right. Will the Leader of the Opposition return to the House and correct the record?
Mr Speaker
The accuracy of what a Member states is not a matter for the Chair, but you have corrected the record in your opinion. We will leave it there for now.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
For three years, the Marsh lock horsebridge in Henley has been closed. The bridge connects Henley to Shiplake and is an integral part of the Thames path national trail. The petition I present today, which has more than 6,000 signatories and was started by nine-year-old Claudia Fennell, who is in the Gallery today, calls for the bridge to be reopened. I welcome news from the Environment Agency that money has been identified to begin design work, but it is only partial funding, and the future is still uncertain.
I take this opportunity to also put on the record my regret at the closure of events organiser Henley Swim due to the sewage crisis, and to express my concern about the pending strike action by lock keepers.
The EA must be given the resources needed to keep our river thriving economically and safe for all users. The petitioners therefore request that
“the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to encourage the Environment Agency to repair and reopen Marsh Lock Horsebridge.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Marsh Lock Horsebridge should be repaired and reopened; notes that an online petition on the issue was started by Claudia Fennell; notes the online petition on this issue has received over 6,000 signatures; notes the petition is supported by the former Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Henley; further notes that the bridge has been closed since May 2022; notes that the bridge is an important part of the constituency community and impacts the mental and physical health of residents; notes that residents are currently unable to access the Thames path to Shiplake and numerous swimming spots; and further notes that local businesses reliant on the footfall from walkers and river-goers have been badly affected.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to encourage the Environment Agency to repair and reopen Marsh Lock Horsebridge.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003067]
Gaza: UK Assessment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK’s assessment of the likelihood of genocide in Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Yesterday, alongside partners, the UK convened a meeting of the UN Security Council in response to the intolerable civilian suffering and humanitarian need in Gaza. As I told the House yesterday, Israel’s denial of aid is appalling. Tonnes of food are currently sitting rotting at the Gaza-Israel border, blocked from reaching people who are starving. Israeli Ministers have said that Israel’s decision to block this aid is a pressure lever. This is cruel and indefensible. Overnight, yet more Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes. This must end.
The message yesterday was clear: the world demands that Israel stops and changes course immediately. With our allies, we are telling the Government of Israel to lift the block on aid entering Gaza now, and enable the UN and all humanitarians to save lives now. We need an immediate ceasefire now. Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool or military tactic, and the UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or that puts vulnerable civilians at risk.
The International Court of Justice case on genocide is ongoing. We support the ICJ. We support its independence. The ICJ issued a set of provisional measures in this case and we support those measures. Israel has an obligation to implement them. It is the UK Government’s long-standing position that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, not for Governments or non-judicial bodies. The UK is fully committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law, and we have at all times acted in a manner consistent with our legal obligations, including under the genocide convention.
The devastation from this conflict must end. Our complete focus is on lifting Israeli restrictions on aid, on freeing the hostages, on protecting civilians and on restoring the ceasefire. We will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course.
Adrian Ramsay
Overnight, the UN’s emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, warned that a genocide was possible in Gaza. One in five people face starvation. The entire population is facing high levels of acute food insecurity. In Gaza, Gaza North, Deir al-Balah, Khan Yunis and Rafah, there is a risk of famine. There is one primary cause: Israel’s aid blockade since 2 March.
The Security Council was told that civilians in Gaza have, again, been forcibly displaced and confined into ever-shrinking spaces, with 80% of the territory either within Israeli militarised zones or under displacement orders. Israeli airstrikes on the European hospital in Gaza yesterday killed 28 people, with further reports of at least 48 deaths overnight from strikes elsewhere. Can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has conducted any recent assessment of its own on the risk that the Israeli authorities are committing genocide?
Last night, the UK’s ambassador to the UN rightly called on Israel to lift the restrictions and ensure a return to the delivery of aid in Gaza in line with humanitarian principles and international law. But that is not enough.
Notwithstanding the Government’s position that it is for judicial bodies to make a determination, what is the Minister’s response to the latest UN assessment that genocide is possible in Gaza? Can he confirm whether the UK stands by the obligation to prevent duty in the genocide convention? Parliament needs to know whether the UN emergency relief co-ordinator’s assessment will lead to a shift in the UK Government’s position. Why is it that when the horrors increase, the UK Government’s position stays the same?
Lastly, to echo the words in Tom Fletcher’s briefing:
“Will you act—decisively—to prevent genocide and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law?”—
or will you instead repeat—
“those empty words: ‘We did all we could’”?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking those important questions. The testimony of the emergency relief co-ordinator, the very most senior official in the world’s entire humanitarian system, given last night at the UN Security Council meeting that we called with our allies, is clearly incredibly important. I can confirm to the hon. Member that we do abide by our international law obligations, including to the genocide convention, and we consider in all of our IHL assessments, which are ongoing, all the relevant tests—and we will continue to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asks important questions, which have echoed in this Chamber yesterday and throughout this long and painful conflict. This Government have taken steps, whether restoring funding, suspending arms exports or working with our partners in the UN and elsewhere. But clearly we are in a situation today that nobody in this House would wish to be in—nobody on the Government Benches and, I am sure, nobody on the Opposition Benches either.
We will need to take more and more action until we see the change that we need, but the central question, as I have told this House repeatedly, is that aid is not being allowed into Gaza. While it is not allowed into Gaza, there is nothing that can be done to get the aid at the scale and in the manner necessary to save Palestinian life. It is on that point that we called the Security Council and on that point that we will continue to act.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind Members not to use the word “you”, because I am not responsible for some of those statements?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Minister has repeatedly said that we do everything to observe international law. Will he please accept that there is a growing body of opinion that says that the UK is not doing that, and that we are not complying with our obligations if we continue to supply parts for the F-35 programme, because these are dropping weapons on children in Gaza? We cannot say that we are observing the Geneva conventions, the genocide convention and Rome statute if we continue to supply those goods. He talks about doing all that we can. If that is the case, why on earth are we not making it abundantly clear to Israel that trading with it is not an option while this continues? So in answer to the question “Is he doing all he can?”, there are many people in this place and beyond who think that we are not.
Mr Falconer
I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues over a long period of time. I do not accept the premise of his question. Whether or not we abide by our legal obligations is a question that will be determined by the courts. It is being determined by the courts this week, so I will leave it to the courts to make judgments on our obligations. We are taking all the steps that we can to bring this conflict to a close. He mentions the vital question of the F-35 programme. I know this House understands the significance of that programme, not just in Europe but across the world. The carve-out that we have put in place has been done on the basis of robust legal advice, which is being tested in the courts this week. We must abide by our obligations to our allies. We are not selling F-35s directly to the Israeli authorities. We continue to supply a global spares pool. That is necessary for the continued function of the F-35 programme, which has critical importance to European security. We make these judgments calmly and soberly, and we will continue to do so.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The situation in the middle east continues to cause concern. That is why we on this side of the House have been clear on the need to see the return of the hostages and a lasting ceasefire. Although we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, there are still 58 hostages held in Gaza by the Iranian-backed terrorists. Those who are still alive are being held in the most dreadful and appalling conditions, without access to aid and medicines. What they and their families have been going through for approaching 600 days is unimaginable. They must be released as a matter of urgency, so can the Minister give an update on the diplomatic steps being taken by the Government to secure the release of the remaining hostages, and what is Britain contributing to those efforts?
This conflict would have been over long ago, had Hamas released the hostages, and the House should not be in any doubt that Hamas and their Iranian sponsors are committed to wiping out the state of Israel. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, with international partners, to deal with the threat to peace, security and stability posed by Iran? We have constantly asked for a strategy to tackle Iran, so when will this come forward? The Government have shared our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, so can we have an update on the practical steps the Government are taking to secure this outcome and end the misery that Hamas are inflicting on Gaza and the threat they pose to Israel?
We have debated aid access to Gaza on several occasions, including in recent days, so can the Minister tell us exactly how much UK-funded aid, both directly and indirectly through multilateral organisations, is waiting to enter Gaza and give us a breakdown of what that aid is? The Government have known for a number of months about the concerns Israel has about the delivery of aid to Gaza and aid diversion, so can the Minister today explain what discussions have taken place with Israel, and what practical solutions Ministers have offered to support the delivery of aid that addresses its concerns? Has the Minister been directly engaged in the discussions that have taken place with Israel and the US over alternative ways to get aid into Gaza? Does he have a view on this and will the UK be participating?
We have also been clear that while we continue to press for humanitarian aid and accountability, we do not consider the actions in Gaza to constitute genocide. The case brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is not helping—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we please stick to the time? The right hon. Lady is almost a minute over. We have to work within the timescales, and Members need to time speeches. Lots of Members need to get in, and we have to support each other. I think the Minister has enough to go on.
Mr Falconer
I of course welcome, as the Foreign Secretary did yesterday, the release of Edan Alexander. I know the whole House thinks of those hostages who remain in Hamas captivity. I have been in direct contact with the American officials involved in that release, and it is a very welcome development. We are focused on ensuring that there is no role for Hamas in a future for Gaza. We are working as part of the Arab reconstruction plan to try to achieve that.
The right hon. Lady asks an important question about the proportion of British aid unable to get into Gaza at the moment. For almost two months, the horrendous answer is 100%. Even before then, there were significant restrictions on the aid that we wish to get into Gaza. I saw for myself the items that were unable to cross from al-Arish into Rafah. The proportions will be very high, but I will see with my officials whether I can break it down in greater detail for her.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Slow and agonising breaths, scared, crying, emancipated bodies fighting for every heartbeat—it is death by a thousand cuts for the children and for the parents watching their babies deliberately being starved to death. Almost 1 million children are at risk of famine and death in Gaza. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. I call on the Government to sanction Israeli officials until the blockade is lifted, because if we do not act now, this will be on us.
Mr Falconer
I know the strength of feeling behind my hon. Friend’s words. I am sure she is aware of the findings of the IPC report on Monday, which delineates in great detail the precise suffering being felt because of a lack of food and nutrition. We are horrified by those findings. The need for action could not be more urgent.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, now exceeding 70 days, is utterly unacceptable. Will the Government now recognise that the blockade constitutes a clear violation of international law? The Government must respect whatever determination the ICJ reaches regarding genocide. There are already clear obligations on the Government to prevent genocide in Gaza arising from the ICJ’s January 2024 order. Have the Government taken any steps to meet those obligations? Will they commit today to banning the export of all UK arms to Israel? Will they reconsider sanctions on extremist Israeli Ministers like Bezalel Smotrich, who called for Gaza to be destroyed? Will the Government commit to the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state? As the UN’s British relief chief told the Security Council yesterday, if we have not done all we could to end the violence in Gaza, we should fear the judgment of future generations. Does the Minister agree?
Mr Falconer
These responsibilities weigh heavily on me and on every member of the Government and the Foreign Office team. But let us not forget what this Government have done. Whether it is restoring funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; suspending arms exports in the way we have described; providing £129 million of humanitarian aid and then being one of the loudest voices in trying to ensure that it enters Gaza; or working with Jordan to fly medicines into Gaza, with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians, with Project Pure Hope to help Gazan children in the UK, and with Kuwait to support vulnerable children through UNICEF; we are taking steps. We take the judgments of the ICJ incredibly seriously, but I cannot pretend to the House that the events in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of recent days are acceptable, and we will continue to take every step we can to get a change of course.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Tomorrow is the 77th anniversary of the 1948 Nakba, which saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes. That still continues today, and the UN Security Council has said that action is now required to prevent genocide. A key step to a peaceful two-state solution would be recognising Palestinian statehood—something that Israel is trying to prevent. With 147 countries recognising Palestinian statehood, is now not the right time for the UK to do so, too?
Mr Falconer
The question of recognition of a Palestinian state is obviously one of vital importance. We want to do so as a contribution to a more stable region. We can see the serious and immediate threats to the viability of Palestinian life, and that is what we are focused on in these most urgent of days.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have been a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel for over 40 years, longer than anybody here. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organisation that hides its own fighters under hospitals, but it is frankly unacceptable to recklessly bomb a hospital. It is unacceptable to starve a whole people. Is the Minister aware that many Friends of Israel worldwide, notwithstanding narrow legal definitions, are asking this moral question: when is genocide not genocide?
Mr Falconer
I have heard in recent weeks a series of powerful interventions from Opposition Members, and I take them seriously with the weight they hold, particularly from the Father of the House and my neighbour in Lincolnshire. We will not move towards making determinations from the Dispatch Box on questions of legal determination, but that does not mean we will wait. The preliminary judgments of the ICJ and the provisional measures it set out are important, and we will abide by them.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister has said, the situation is intolerable with one in five Gazans facing starvation; the use of aid as a weapon of war by Israel is inexcusable. The continued firing of rockets by Hamas and detention of hostages are also inexcusable, and it all must end. I welcome the UK, with our international allies, calling an urgent briefing on the situation at the UN Security Council. There, the UN humanitarian chief was clear in his warning about the dire consequences of the situation continuing. What steps are this Labour Government taking to get more aid in, get the hostages out and bring about the ceasefire and two-state solution that we all in this House desperately want to see?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend, who I know has been long committed to these issues and used to be an aid worker herself. She is a doughty advocate on these points. We remain absolutely committed to a two-state solution. We are focusing all our diplomatic efforts on ensuring that the current approach is changed, that we return to a diplomatic solution, and that we have a ceasefire, the release of hostages and a move back to that two-state solution, which, as she rightly puts it, is vital.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The situation in Gaza is clearly intolerable, and Israel has to find a way of getting aid in safely and without diversion. But does the Minister agree that we need to be very careful about the use of the word “genocide” and that we do not devalue the word? It is used to describe the systematic and deliberate murder of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany. We must question whether—and I do not believe that—a war designed to release hostages and remove a terrorist threat, against terrorists that hide among the civilian population, crosses that threshold.
Mr Falconer
It is the long-standing position of Governments of all stripes that it is for international courts to make determinations of that nature, and we will abide by our obligations under international humanitarian law.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Since 2 March, no food or medical aid supplies have reached over 2.3 million Palestinians. Many of us from across this House have attended many statements and Westminster Hall debates and have submitted parliamentary questions asking the Government about this critical issue. The hostages still remain in captivity and need to be released, but the reality is that using aid to punish so many people is wrong. Does the Minister agree that under the genocide convention, the UK as a state party has an obligation not only to prevent and punish genocide, but to avoid actions that may assist or enable genocidal acts?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks important questions about aid access and the nature of aid delivery. Let me be clear: the UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or put vulnerable people at risk. The obligations under international humanitarian law and international law more broadly are clear, and they fall on Israel as the occupying power. It must abide by them.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Very few issues in politics, particularly international politics, are black or white, but this is one such issue. The Israeli Government are using collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population, which is illegal under international law and contravenes the Geneva conventions, to which Israel is party. Does the Minister think that the British Government have lost their moral and legal compass in continuing their tacit support for Israel?
Mr Falconer
I have set out some of what the Government have done, and I could continue doing so for some time. Let me be clear. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the absolutely appalling nature of any attempt to weaponise aid and use incendiary language, which are clearly breaches of international obligations. We have condemned from the Dispatch Box much of that language, some of which was repeated by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). I take this opportunity to say again that the British Government absolutely condemn that inflammatory language. We will continue to do so, and to make our views known to the Israeli Government, in the most forceful possible way.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The international community has failed to stop Israel’s impunity. We have collectively failed to act on violations as they are committed, and to hold Israel to account. With our collective failure, Palestinians in Gaza face collective punishment. Israeli Ministers have stated that stopping humanitarian aid is one of their main levers of pressure. That is not only cruel and indefensible, but an explicit admission of violations of international law. I hear our condemnations, Minister, but I see no action. Why are we still sending arms? Why are we not sanctioning Israeli Ministers? The UN has said what many know to be true: as a signatory to the Geneva convention, we have a legal obligation to prevent genocide. Minister, when will we act?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is forceful advocate on these questions. She points to failure, and I recognise that failure. So many days and months on, the people of Gaza and the west bank, and of course the hostages, are in the most distressing circumstances possible. I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on sanctions, as she would expect, but I can assure her that we will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the slaughter in Gaza, the brutality and cruelty on the west bank, and starvation as a policy. The crimes come daily, such as the recent killing of Mohammed Bardawil, one of only three key eyewitnesses to the slaughter of rescue workers just a few weeks ago, whose bodies were buried in shallow graves. It is clear to everybody that crimes are being committed daily.
As a number of Members have pointed out, the UK is a party to international agreements that provide a positive obligation to act to prevent genocide and torture and protect the rights of others. We have an obligation, as a member of the United Nations Security Council and a state party to the Geneva conventions, to promote peace and security. What advice has the Minister taken on the liability that will attach to him as a decision maker? Have the Government received advice on whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, any senior officials or previous Ministers may be exposed when the reckoning comes?
Mr Falconer
As Members would expect, I will not discuss internal legal advice in the Chamber, whether it applies to me or other Ministers. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, right across Government, we understand the gravity of the situation and the weight that falls on us to ensure changes to this diabolical trajectory. We will continue to use our role in the Security Council, the G7 and the E3, as we did yesterday, and that action will not stop.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister still refuses to address the central issue, which is that our obligation to prevent genocide under the Rome statute has already been triggered by the ample evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. In the week marking 77 years since the Nakba, how many more times will he come to the Chamber with just words—words that do nothing? We need action. Let us be clear: it is not a case of if but when he will end the UK’s complicity in arming a state that is accused of genocide against the Palestinians, and of when he will finally impose sanctions on Israel. History will judge his delay.
Mr Falconer
I remind the House of the decisions that we took last year. We have discussed the question of the F-35 global spares pool. The basis on which we made a carve-out is clear and has been debated many times. Let me be clear: aside from that carve-out, when we came into government, we took on the solemn duty of making an assessment, which did not appear to have been made, of the serious risk of potential breaches of international humanitarian law. We then suspended arms export licences where those weapons could be used in such conduct—that means in Gaza, on the west bank, and in relation to all the areas where those risks accrued. We took far-reaching action. That action is still in place, and we continue to conduct those assessments.
I can understand why many Members may feel frustrated by the F-35 carve-out. Perhaps they also feel frustrated about our continuing to sell arms that do not risk a violation, according to the assessment that has been much discussed here. We think it right that we, for example, continue to provide body armour that might be used by non-governmental organisations in Gaza, or provide parts of the supply chain that could end up in the hands of NATO allies. We have taken far-reaching action on arms. That is important work that we are proud of.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I have just returned from the High Court this morning, where Government lawyers will argue, in defending the continued supply of F-35 components, that the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide, and that there is a
“tenable view that no genocide has occurred or is occurring”.
It appears that the Government—whether they have told the Minister so or not—have already made a determination, and that explains why they have no intention of asking for an independent assessment of whether a genocide is likely. The Government know that if they did ask for one, it would reveal an unpalatable truth that would prevent them from supplying Israel with the weapons that it needs to continue its merciless onslaught. It really is as grubby as that, isn’t it, Minister?
Mr Falconer
It is not as grubby as that. First, we will not litigate an ongoing legal case in the Chamber, as Members would expect. A judicial review on the F-35 element is happening over these days. The judge will find on that, and we will respect the judgment. Let me be absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman: we continue to conduct assessments across a full range of responsibilities under international law. It is simply not true to suggest that we are avoiding making any internal assessment in order to justify policy. We continue to assess these things carefully. We do it on a rolling basis, regularly. What he says is simply not true.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his personal commitment to this cause, and the UK Government for putting this matter on the record at the UN yesterday as a matter of extreme urgency. May I also put to the Minister directly the challenge yesterday from Tom Fletcher, the UN’s aid chief? He said:
“For those killed and those whose voices are silenced: what more evidence do you need now?...Will you act—decisively—to prevent genocide?”
What is the Minister’s answer to that question?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has been committed to these issues since before he came to this place. Tom Fletcher’s words are important. As I said earlier, he is the most senior member of the humanitarian community in the world, and what he said at yesterday’s meeting, which we called, is very important. We have not waited for yesterday’s meeting, or for the determination of international courts, to take action. Let us not forget what we have done in relation to UNRWA, on arms suspension, on sanctions on Israeli settlers, or through our convening role on the United Nations Security Council. We will continue to take action. Mr Fletcher rightly asks for “decisive” action. Has our action yet been decisive? Clearly it has not. Hostages remain detained, Palestinians continue to suffer, and a two-state solution feels very distant indeed. We have not yet had the decisive effect that we would wish to see, and we will continue to act until we do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As well as raping, kidnapping and killing civilians on 7 October for the sake of it, Hamas had a strategy: to try to prevent further peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbours by provoking a massive, frenzied reaction to the atrocities. Does the Minister share my dismay that this brutal strategy seems to be succeeding?
Mr Falconer
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s dismay that events in the region since the horrific actions of 7 October have involved an enormous amount of bloodshed and civilian suffering. This Government hope that we will yet see a day when the region is stable, when there are normal diplomatic relations between all its members, and when there is a two-state solution, with the two states living securely and safely side by side. I regret that it feels such a distant prospect.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Seventy-seven years since the Nakba, Israel’s illegal occupation eats away at the land. We now have—I will repeat these words loud and clear—“plausible genocide” according to the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International and the United Nations. Given this week’s news, what new assessments have been made, and how often, to determine what other actions we can take to stop what is happening to the Gazans—the children, the civilians, and the aid workers—and to make sure that we can get aid in? What other pressures and levers can the Government use, including as part of a bloc, together with international partners and others, in addition to recognising Palestine? Surely that recognition is long overdue.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks important questions about assessments. Those are made regularly, on a rolling basis, and in the light of new events. I reassure her that we do not wait for assessments or final legal determinations before taking action. I have listed some of that action already, and I reassure her that we will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Even if the Minister cannot condemn what is obviously an act of genocide, will he tell us in clear terms whether we are still supplying parts for F-35 jets that find their way to Israel and take part in the bombardment of Gaza? Are there still flights going from RAF Akrotiri over to Israel that are carrying military equipment that can be used either to bomb Gaza or to undertake military action against the people of the west bank?
Mr Falconer
The decisions that we take on arms bind every part of the UK Government. We are a Government committed to abiding by our international legal obligations, and we will continue to do so. Let me be clear, again, on the position on F-35s. The F-35 sales directly to Israel, whether in relation to any particular component, have been suspended. Sales to a global pool, which are necessary for the continued function of the global F-35 programme, have not been suspended. Where sales go to a global pool, it is clearly possible that they could find a final destination in Israel, but to suspend our provision of components to the F-35 global pool would, in effect, render the F-35 programme inoperable. It is on that basis that we set out the decisions that we took in September.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
May I put on record the relief that I and many others feel about the release of Edan Alexander? I am saying a prayer for the other hostages.
Every week that we come back to this House the horror is greater. Many of us woke up this morning to a spokesperson for the Israeli Government on the “Today” programme denying that there is hunger in Gaza at all. This House knows the reality: we are 10 weeks into a blockade of aid by the Israeli Government, and one in five are starving. The Minister will know that Tom Fletcher spoke passionately and with purpose yesterday at the UN about the collective failure of the UN to speak out previously. How do we avoid that this time? What more evidence do we need before we take action, and what more action can be done?
Mr Falconer
As I said earlier, the words of Tom Fletcher in the United Nations Security Council are important. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification assessment that was produced on Monday—that assessment is authoritative and thorough in its production—is the most important indication of needs in Gaza. It should be taken seriously by everyone in this Chamber, and indeed by the Israeli Government. My hon. Friend has long been committed to these issues, and he knows the actions that we have taken so far. I will not speculate from the Dispatch Box, other than to reassure the House that we will be working urgently with our allies and partners to ensure that Israel changes course.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
There can be few now who would believe that the conduct of the Netanyahu Government is anything other than gross and disproportionate. However, does the Minister agree with me that the actor in the region that has unequivocally embarked on genocide is Hamas, with their self-avowed policy of killing Jews and eradicating the state of Israel?
Mr Falconer
I have condemned Hamas for their despicable actions and ugly and unacceptable rhetoric many times from this Dispatch Box, and I am happy to do so again. It is the events of 7 October, in all their full horror, that triggered this most recent, most horrific round of violence.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
In addition to calling for the release of all hostages, Tom Fletcher, the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, asked last night what action we will tell future generations that we each took
“to stop the 21st century atrocity to which we bear daily witness in Gaza.”
What action will the Government take if, in the next 24 hours, Israel does not allow aid into Gaza?
Mr Falconer
As I have said throughout the course of the afternoon, the responsibilities weigh heavily on all of us. We do not view the situation as acceptable, and we will continue to take steps with our allies and partners to urge Israel to change course.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As we meet here, in this rather grand Palace of Westminster, the reality on the ground is that Palestinian children continue to die in the rubble. Is it not becoming clear that the central policy of the Israeli Government seems more about protecting the political skin and life of the current Israeli Prime Minister than even saving the lives of the remaining Israeli hostages and saving the lives of Palestinians? I appeal to the British Government to be again on the right side of history, of the law and of moral judgment, and not to back one particular individual, fighting for his political life, back in Tel Aviv.
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about the various views in Israel. I will not speculate on the decision making of others, but I listen very carefully to the words of the Israeli hostages themselves when they have been released, what they make of the circumstances in Israel and what policy they think should be adopted. Those are important voices and they echo loudly, both in this Chamber and across the world. We are clear that, whatever the intentions, the international obligations under law on the Israeli Government in relation to Gaza are indisputable, and we call today, as we have called every day, for them to abide by them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group.
It is the anniversary of the murder by Israeli forces of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned journalist. Alongside her on that day was another journalist, Ali Samoudi, who was shot in the back. Two weeks ago, the Israeli forces arrested him and dragged him from his home, and Ali is now in detention somewhere, but we do not know where. Under international law, journalists are afforded special protection. Will the Minister immediately take up with the Israeli Government the question of where Ali Samoudi is and seek to do everything we can do to secure his release? He works for CNN, Reuters and Al Jazeera, and all he was doing was simply reporting on some of the war crimes that are taking place.
Mr Falconer
My right hon. Friend raises incredibly important points about journalists and I am happy to take up the case in question. Not just journalists but a whole set of people are afforded special protections under international law, including medical professionals and aid workers, many of whom we have seen involved in terrible incidents in Gaza. We have been pressing for accountability and justice on those questions; I think in particular of the three British nationals killed in the World Central Kitchen incident more than a year ago, for whom we are still waiting for justice.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that, where prima facie evidence of genocide exists, awaiting for the determination to be made formally by a court is not sufficient for us to meet the duty to prevent under the genocide convention?
Mr Falconer
In this case, the International Court of Justice is clearly the correct authority. It has issued a set of provisional measures, which we support.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Civilians are starving to death in Gaza. Aid has been held for 10 weeks and used as a weapon against innocent civilians. My constituents are rightly outraged by what they are seeing, and so am I. While I welcome the Minister’s words, what further actions can the Government take to send a clearer message to Israel that this absolutely has to stop? Will the Minister look again at sanctions? Will he look at arms export licences? And will he recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I know my hon. Friend’s constituents will be concerned, just as my constituents in Lincoln and those across the whole country are concerned. I saw the situation with my own eyes when I went to al-Arish, where British aid was languishing while people desperately required it in Gaza. I saw the restrictions that were preventing aid getting in. I can assure her and her constituents that I have raised this personally in every way that I have thought I am able to do so, to try and make progress, and we will continue to do so. It is a source of continued personal frustration to me, and frustration to the Government, that we have not been able to get aid back into Gaza in accordance with international law.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does the Minister have any information about how much aid is being held in Hamas-controlled warehouses in Gaza? Is the key to this desperate situation our links to Tehran? At the end of the day, the Iranian regime pulls the strings of its puppet organisation, Hamas, who are holding the hostages in conditions akin to torture.
Mr Falconer
We take serious steps to ensure that Hamas do not get access to aid. We supported a review into the function of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. In his remarks yesterday, Mr Fletcher set out his view on the robustness of the United Nations provisions to try to prevent Hamas from stockpiling aid. The findings of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report on Monday about the circumstances in which Palestinian civilians are trying to live in Gaza make for sobering reading. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Iran’s malign role in the region must stop. It has supported Hamas, who have brought nothing but pain and misery, not just to Israelis but to Palestinians as well.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last week, in response to a question I asked, the Minister said:
“Forcible movement of the Gazan population out of Gaza would be forcible displacement”.—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]
Forcible displacement is a war crime; it is already happening and it is about to accelerate. Will he say in turn, as the head of UNRWA said this week and as the former Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said last week, that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I will resist my hon. Friend, who is not just a doughty advocate for the Palestinian people but a respected lawyer. As he would expect, I am not going to take the opportunity to make a determination at the Dispatch Box, but I will be clear again that forcible displacement is clearly prohibited by international law, and we are clear on that at all times.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Amnesty International has described the two-month siege in Gaza as “genocide in action”. According to experts, Israel is deliberately creating conditions that could lead to the physical destruction of the Palestinian people, a pattern many argue amounts to genocide. As a signatory to the genocide convention, does the Minister agree that the UK has a legal duty to act when there is a risk of genocide, and that the duty to prevent begins not when genocide is confirmed, proven or established, but when there is a reasonable suspicion that it is occurring? The alarms are flashing red and the warning signs are there for the Government to act. Will they act?
Mr Falconer
I have set out the process of determination, the provisional measures that have been issued by the ICJ and the Government’s determination not to wait until cases are concluded but to take action now to try to preserve life.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Israel is intentionally starving Palestinians and action should be taken to stop the war crimes and genocide. Those are the words of a leading United Nations expert on the right to food. Will the Minister tell us what is preventing the Government from imposing sanctions on Israel? What are they scared of? If we cannot discuss this from the Dispatch Box, we certainly cannot discuss it behind closed doors.
Mr Falconer
The House has heard me talk about sanctions in the same terms over a long period of time. I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration about my not being able to speculate from the Dispatch Box about the sanctions we might take, but to do so would reduce their effectiveness and frustrate the will of the House. We keep all of these matters under close review. We are not scared in the performance of our duties. We are working all the time to try practically to change the situation on the ground, and that is to what all our efforts are directed.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Barely a day goes by when I do not receive impassioned pleas from my constituents begging for actions, not words, from this Government. Many have shared their distress that we celebrated the defeat of tyranny on VE Day at the same time that the people of Gaza starved and were being bombed to oblivion. They say that we are complicit in genocide. What does the Minister say to my constituents? I agree with them, but I feel powerless to do any more than come to this House every time and say the same thing.
Mr Falconer
Deeds, not words. We are restoring funding to UNRWA, suspending arms licences and giving £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have continued work at the UN Security Council and in relation to international courts. I recognise the frustration of the House, and I do not in any way wish to weigh misery between the many, many people still in Gaza or the west bank facing real hardship at this moment, but the action of this Government has made a real difference to Palestinian lives—I have seen it with my own eyes. There are people who are in safety now because of the UK Government, and we will continue to do what we can. I accept that there is more to do, but our actions do have impact.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for outlining the horrors being inflicted on the people of Gaza so clearly yet again, but we have heard words from the Dispatch Box many times in support of the Palestinians before. He talks about court proceedings, but they take months, if not years, to complete. Men, women and children are dying every hour from hunger, disease and bombs in Gaza at the moment. They cannot wait. What is the Minister doing? We need action, not words.
Mr Falconer
I have outlined some of the action, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not waiting for legal determinations, not least because the ICJ has issued provisional measures, and because it is the policy of this Government that we are acting now to try to improve the lot of Palestinians.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
One thing we can all agree on is that we want to see the safe release of the hostages. It is evident that military action, in and of itself, was never going to achieve that. With that in mind, do the Government support or condemn Israel for the most recent escalation of military action? If they are not prepared to condemn it at this stage, how many more innocent deaths must there be before they do?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman refers to the hostages. Some of the released hostages have made this argument with the greatest force, and they are important words. Let me say concretely and clearly that the British Government oppose the return to war in Gaza by the Israeli Government; we oppose the most recent escalation.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who is getting increasingly frustrated by the number of discussions that we have where we say the same things over and over again while the horrific situation for the Palestinian people in Gaza worsens day by day. Does the Minister agree that for us to send a clear message to Israel, we need to do three things: suspend all arms licences to Israel, including the F-35 licences; impose sanctions against Israel; and recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
The House has heard me speak of my frustration on a number of occasions—I share that with my hon. Friend. I think I have addressed the three substantive points that he raises already in this session.
Mr Falconer
I am the Minister; these responsibilities weigh particularly heavily on me. I am not blind to the IPC or to Tom Fletcher’s testimony at a session that we called. Do hon. Members think that I am unaware of the horrors being meted out to people in Gaza? I am not unaware: I am taking every action that I can, as are other Ministers. It is an intolerable situation, as hon. Members heard from the Prime Minister earlier, and we are lifting every effort to try to change it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Nobody wants war, but we must reflect that this is a war. It is a war between our ally Israel and the aggressor, Hamas. It was Hamas who brutally murdered, mutilated and raped innocent Israeli citizens. It is Hamas who still keep 58 hostages under lock and key. It is Hamas who, in their own charter, have genocidal intent, calling for the wiping out of Israel and the killing of Jews. Will the Minister at least accept that those people who wish to call those trying to defend their own citizens genocidal are playing into the hands of the terrorists themselves, who will continue to use their own citizens as human shields and give no pathway to peace?
Mr Falconer
I condemn Hamas and their actions entirely. Israel is an ally, but we say to all our allies that international humanitarian law is a binding framework for us all. When it is breached in one place, the breach echoes around the world. That is why we have been so clear on these questions throughout.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am sick and tired of coming back to this Chamber, asking the same questions and getting the same answers, when war crime after war crime is being committed and a genocide is taking place. It is a sick joke to believe that it is right—which it is—to impose sanctions on Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine, but that tut-tutting at Benjamin Netanyahu and telling everyone “We think this is really bad” somehow cuts the mustard: it does not. Words are not enough to stop war crimes. We need more than words and more than actions. Can the Minister advise this House how many more Gazans need to be killed, injured and starved by Israel until the Government do the right thing and bring widespread sanctions in, like they did with Russia? People think that we are scared and that this is a double standard.
Mr Falconer
We have taken action, as I have described this afternoon. I have already assured the House that it is certainly not fear that shapes our actions. I am always happy to return to this Dispatch Box to answer questions from parliamentarians about this question, but I do not want to give the House the impression that that is all I do. When I am not in this House, I am working on these tasks with urgency. I have listed some of the actions that we have taken since I became the Minister. I will continue to work on these questions and to return to the House to answers Members’ questions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the last 18 months, Israel has facilitated 1.7 million tonnes of aid going into Gaza. Very sadly, much of that aid has ended up in warehouses and trucks have been raided by Hamas operatives. The aid has failed to get into the hands of the people who desperately need it. We now have a position whereby the blockade has continued. Will the Minister come up with a credible plan to get the aid in, require the Israel Defence Forces to facilitate the aid going to the people who desperately need it, and prevent Hamas and other terrorists from capturing the aid and preventing the people of Gaza from gaining the aid that they desperately need?
Mr Falconer
Where Hamas have interfered with aid deliveries, I condemn that utterly. We have to be clear that considerable amounts of aid were not allowed into Gaza, even before this most recent blockade, which is now ensuring that nowhere near the scale of aid required is getting in. As I think the hon. Member is alluding to, there are proposals for other methods of getting it in. We would support proposals to get aid into Gaza, provided that they are in accordance with humanitarian principles, which are vital in every conflict zone around the world. The UN emergency relief co-ordinator yesterday set out his views on how those principles need to be adhered to.
Rachael Maskell
UK manufacturers of F-35 components can place GPS markers on every single component, and the UK Government can ensure that every component that is exported has a GPS marker on it, so what is the Government’s excuse for continuing with their programme on F-35s when they can distinguish the destination of every single component?
Mr Falconer
I have set out the position on F-35s and the manner in which the global spares pool works. That is information provided by the experts who are responsible; I understand that some hon. Members may disagree with those facts. The discussion is happening in a judicial review this week, and I will not get ahead of that process.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
One in five people in Gaza are facing starvation, 90% of people are now displaced, over 50,000 people are dead, and Gaza is the most dangerous place on earth for humanitarian workers. This has to end. The Government keep on condemning Netanyahu, but he does not listen. The time for words has to stop—we need action. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to sanctioning extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet, suspending all arms trade with the Israeli Government and recognising a Palestinian state?
Mr Falconer
Those three points have already been put to me over the course of the afternoon, so I will not repeat my answers, and I will not speculate on further sanctions. However, as the hon. Gentleman references sanctions on settlers, I will point out that we have taken far-reaching sanctions on settlers. We oppose the violent expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, which are illegal under international law, and we will continue to do so.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his often candid comments in this Chamber, but we will continue to come here and ask questions, since our constituents continue to be horrified—as we are—by the devastation that is playing out in Gaza. The UN has stated that action must be taken now to prevent genocide, so does the Minister understand that when our constituents hear a legal response, they remain so frustrated, and that they want to see tangible action?
Mr Falconer
I do understand the frustration of constituents; as I said earlier, that frustration is shared in Lincoln and across the country. Everybody in this House and everybody across the country wants to see an end to the awful scenes on our television screens.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister has stated that the legality of the UK’s F-35 exports is currently being tested in the courts. In the High Court, the Government have made submissions that
“No evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children”,
and that there is
“also evidence of Israel making efforts to limit incidental harm to civilians.”
If the Government need to be shown evidence that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, I suggest the Minister and his colleagues review the footage captured by the BBC of yesterday’s bombing of Gaza’s European hospital, the footage emerging from the Nasser hospital, the millions of hours of livestreamed footage available since 7 October, or the thousands of reports and articles published since. The past 18 months have seen a total war on all of Gaza, with acts of ethnic cleansing and extermination, according to the UN. Does the UK deny the existence of that evidence, and if so, have the Government committed perjury?
Mr Falconer
It is obviously inappropriate to try to rehearse submissions that are currently being heard by the court.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows this, but we should put on record that when President Netanyahu says there is “no way” he will stop his onslaught in Gaza, he does not do so with the consent of the hostage families, or indeed of the majority of people in Israel. Even President Trump is now avoiding him. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is right: we have obligations too. I hear the Minister’s frustration, and I think that across this House we want to give him strength so that he can go further. He will have heard the calls for sanctions and reports to international criminal courts. Will he give us a vote in this place about immediately recognising Palestine, as we had in 2014, so that we can strengthen his negotiations with Israel and send a clear message that what is happening in Gaza is wrong and must stop?
Mr Falconer
I know that my hon. Friend has an incredibly brave and courageous constituent who is herself a member of a hostage family. Whenever I have seen her, her words ring in my ears, as do those of other hostage families, and I know they do so across the world. They are important views expressed by those who are most directly affected by the horrors of 7 October and all that followed.
I have already rehearsed some of the arguments in relation to recognition.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his clarity that genocide is a legal test of whether a crime has been committed
“with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
That is exactly what the Hamas terrorist group state in their foundational charter: the intent to destroy Israel and Jews worldwide, as they actively sought to do on 7 October. If they wanted to end the war, Hamas would release the 58 hostages they continue to hold. How is the Minister supporting our friend and ally, the democracy Israel, in its fight against this genocidal terrorist group?
Mr Falconer
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the horrors of what Hamas have done, and the ugly and unacceptable rhetoric they have often employed, not just towards Israelis but towards Jews everywhere, and I recognise the anxiety in this country about the rise in antisemitic rhetoric ever since 7 October. As I said earlier, Israel is our ally, and we have stood with her when she faces legitimate security threats. We have always urged her, as a friend, to abide by international humanitarian law. Where there is a risk that she does not, we make that clear, as we have discussed over the course of this afternoon.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I preface my question by saying that no Member of this House should doubt the dedication and compassion with which the Minister fulfils his duties. Over the past few days, the World Health Organisation has warned that Gazans face intergenerational scarring as a result of hunger in the territory. The WHO quoted figures produced by the Gazan Health Ministry, which held that 55 children have died as a result of malnutrition. What assessment do the UK Government make of the extent of malnutrition in Gaza and the number of deaths attributable to starvation as a result of Israel’s refusal to allow aid to enter the strip?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks important questions, and I know that he follows these issues closely. The most up-to-date and authoritative assessment of those questions is Monday’s IPC assessment. We are considering it in detail—its findings are appalling. We are not yet able to fully delineate the link between aid restrictions and those findings in the level of detail that my hon. Friend has described, but the connection is obvious.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am looking to finish this urgent question at around 2 o’clock, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their questions pithy and the Minister kept his answers pithy, as would the rest of the House.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I have recently returned from a visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We were expecting an appalling situation, but it was far, far worse. Israeli Ministers are gleefully calling for the bombing of food warehouses because they believe it will help bring victory—in their eyes. It is clear that Israeli hostages are being used as a pretext to continue the slaughter and starvation in Gaza.
Although I recognise the Minister’s sincere compassion in the way he has expressed himself on this issue, it is clear that he comes to this Chamber with a straitjacket around him. What we need here is the Prime Minister, who can make the decisions; otherwise, we are not going to see any action on arms supplies, on trade or in any other area, including recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Minister cannot do those things, can he at least recognise the right of Palestinians to statehood?
Mr Falconer
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to travel; as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, I recognise the importance of Members from across the House seeing these situations up close and being able to form their own judgments. I am the relevant Minister, and I speak with the authority of the Government.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister, who is a good man, recognises that the 70-day aid blockade has made starvation widespread in Gaza. During the recess, I was on a delegation with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We were nearby in Egypt, and we heard real fears that annexation of both Gaza and the west bank is near-inevitable. The Minister has told us what steps he has taken up until now, but there has been a clear escalation, so can he please give us some hope that there are further levers that can be pulled? We do not want to be on the wrong side of history.
Mr Falconer
I will not speculate about further actions, but I recognise, as I did in my previous answer, how welcome it is that my hon. Friend has travelled to the region. Egypt is an important partner for the UK on this question. I saw the vital role that it is playing in supporting healthcare for injured Palestinian children. I saw injured Palestinian children myself in al-Arish hospital, and I was pleased while I was there to announce a £1 million UK contribution to ensure that Palestinian civilians displaced into Egypt get the help and healthcare that they need.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The UN says that Israel’s denial of aid is evidence of
“the systematic dismantling of Palestinian life”.
There is therefore a risk that we are witnesses to genocide. The Minister’s Government can reinstate airlifts of aid along the lines of those arranged last year, which would send a powerful message. Will the Minister act now and enable aid airlifts?
Mr Falconer
We have supported airlifts in the past, as I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, and we were glad to work with our Jordanian partners on that question. I have to be straightforward with the House: given the scale of need in Gaza, we should not be displaced from the central question, which is ensuring that the road crossings open. That is the only way to get aid in at the scale required.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Things should have been clear at the outset when Yoav Gallant, the former Israeli Defence Minister, said that Israel will “eliminate everything”. Some 18 months and 52,000 deaths later, Israel Katz, also a Defence Minister in Israel, stated that blocking aid was being used to “pressure” Hamas, making starvation an openly stated Israeli weapon of war. Elimination, eradication or genocide—as Tom Fletcher said, can this Government now urgently act to prevent it?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks important questions, and I have been clear from this Dispatch Box, and I am clear again, that aid must not be used as a pressure tool, it must not be used as political leverage and it must not be used as a military tactic.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have had truly shocking statements in this Chamber. The Foreign Secretary suggested that not enough Palestinians had been killed for it to constitute a genocide. The Prime Minister stated that although he understood the definition of genocide, he did not refer to it as a genocide. The Minister repeats that it is a matter for the International Court of Justice. If that is the case, why are Government lawyers advancing submissions that no genocide has been conducted when it comes to the sale of F-35 parts?
Mr Falconer
As I have said, I am not going to try to litigate the submissions of the court case on the questions that we have described. I have addressed the issues repeatedly in this House. I have always been clear that we would defend that case, and that is what we are doing, and we will see the judgment of the judges.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Currently, 4,000 newborns in Gaza are unable to access essential lifesaving care due to the destruction of medical facilities. Severe malnutrition and the death of critically ill children is now a daily reality. In the light of the ongoing suffering of children, does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to go further in its actions and find alternative ways to get critical medicines into Gaza, protect those vulnerable children and ensure humanitarian access into Gaza? Will he consider alternative routes for those children who desperately need critical care?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is committed to these questions. I responded to an earlier question by emphasising the central importance of road routes in ensuring aid of the scale required. However, I assure the House that we continue to look at what alternatives we can find to help where we can. That has included supporting a small number of Gazan children to get access to specialist healthcare here in the UK, which they are currently accessing. Where we can help, we will help, but I must be honest with the House about the scale of aid that is required if the IPC findings of Monday are to be averted.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Three weeks ago, while I was in the west bank, I spoke to a young Palestinian refugee mother who asked me, with tears in her eyes, “Why has the world forgotten us?” My response then has been echoed today: the world has not forgotten them, but what we have done is fail them completely. The failure looks like this: the United Nations has now confirmed that since March, more than 100 children every single day have been killed or injured. Imagine if it was our children. If, God forbid, 100 European children or 100 Israeli children were being killed every single day, would we be supplying even a penknife to the perpetrators of the crime—yes or no?
Mr Falconer
The death of any child is a tragedy. I have set out already the steps that we have taken in relation to arms suspensions. I reassure those watching not from the UK, as I reassured the Jordanian MPs whom I saw this morning, that nobody has forgotten about Gaza—not in this House, and not in this country. It will continue to be an issue of first-rank importance for this Government, and I will continue to work every day to try to see the changes we have described this afternoon.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister has touched on the UK Government supplying the global pool of components for F-35 jets for international security and peace. Considering that we are seeing the live-streaming of a genocide against the Palestinian people—F-35s are a crucial part of that, and are being used to bomb civilian camps and hospitals—are the Government considering whether Israel, given its actions, should be part of that global pool?
Mr Falconer
I do not wish to seem evasive, but when these questions are being determined in the court this week, I do not want to get ahead of those submissions and those discussions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some thanks should be given to the Minister for his temperament, his well-chosen words and his reaction to all the questions. He has shown incredible patience, and we all admire him for that. Undoubtedly, there are innocent people who are suffering and have been suffering since Hamas’s genocidal attacks on 7 October. The suffering of Israeli and Palestinian children means that we must find a way forward to secure peace, so how does the Minister believe we can further push for the aim of peace and make the welfare of the children in this region—the innocents—a priority?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman is unfailing in his courtesy, and I am grateful for it again this afternoon. He asks the vital, central question: how can we return to a diplomatic process that provides for security and stability in the region? It must be in accordance with the Arab reconstruction plan, with no place for Hamas in the future, an immediate release of hostages, an immediate return of aid and a return to a diplomatic process that can provide for security and stability for two states side by side.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My constituents write to me on an almost daily basis, horrified by the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our very eyes. The denial of aid to innocent Palestinians is not only intolerable, but unconscionable. My hon. Friend was right earlier when he talked about deeds, not words, so what does further pressure on Israel look like? What practical measures will our Government take to prevent genocide, in line with our international legal obligations?
Mr Falconer
I can reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents in Paisley that we discuss these matters urgently with our friends and allies, and we will always abide by our international legal obligations, including those she mentions.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Given the genocide we are witnessing unfold before our eyes every single day, will the Government drop the 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions to apply pressure on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued engagement in these questions. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am afraid that I will not be speculating on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I acknowledge the dedication of my hon. Friend and British diplomats in this regard, but my constituents are deeply concerned. Does he agree that the Israeli Security Cabinet’s recent plans are completely unacceptable? Its aid blockade is also totally unconscionable. We must make plain to this Israeli Government that we and the international community will not tolerate this, and that as in other theatres of conflict, we will consider all practical steps, including military aid drops, to get aid through to those who need it.
Mr Falconer
I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be feeling, but I can reassure him that we are considering all measures to try to ensure that aid gets into Gaza. I regret that there is no alternative to road access, given the scale of the aid required, but we will continue to work on these questions with the urgency that he has described. I am grateful for his words about British diplomats. Let me reassure the House that not only the ministerial team but the diplomatic service of the United Kingdom works on these questions each and every day, includes in yesterday afternoon’s session of the UN Security Council.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The 10 long weeks since the Israeli blockade began have brought famine to the region, while food is rotting across the border and the Israeli Government are lying and denying the scale of the atrocities. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, has been quoted as saying that the blockade is a “main pressure lever” to secure victory. When will the UK Government, as a member of the UN Security Council, impose meaningful sanctions to stop the genocide that we are seeing?
Mr Falconer
We have covered sanctions and determinations, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that we consider our position on the Security Council to be an important responsibility, which is why we called the meeting yesterday that has led to so much of the discussion this afternoon.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
In the scenes and pictures that we are seeing, many of our constituents are looking for family members. One such family member is Dr Radi, who is stuck in north Gaza and is very ill and frail, and whose son and daughter-in-law are important NHS doctors in my constituency. What are we doing to ensure that there is a way for people who need care and are stuck in Gaza to come out, and to be cared for by family members here?
Mr Falconer
It is a top priority for me, and for my officials, to ensure that British nationals or their dependants who are in danger in Gaza are able to leave safely. I do not wish to comment on the specifics, but I am happy to take up that case and others with my hon. Friend and any other Members whose constituents are in similar circumstances.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Minister for all his work on this issue. Given the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution, and given our obligations under international law, can he explain how the Government justify engaging in trade negotiations with Israel while the UN is warning us about genocide in Gaza, and does he agree that pursuing a trade deal in these circumstances would undermine both our ability to broker a two-state solution and our positive obligation to act to prevent violations of international law?
Mr Falconer
I can assure the House that my focus is on the matters that we have discussed this afternoon. They are urgent and immediate, and they crowd out all other priorities.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The truth is that there is no need for any organisation to tell the public that what is happening is genocide. After all, we have seen the attempted extermination of the Palestinian people televised live for over a year now. I put it to the Minister that this Government will be remembered as having been complicit in, and accomplices to, the war crime being committed by Israel. What actually has to happen before our Government will take meaningful action in the name of humanity and decency?
Mr Falconer
On the very first day I became a Minister, we restored funding to UNRWA, and within weeks we had taken the far-reaching actions that I have described in relation to arms sales. I understand the force of the question, and I understand the feeling of our constituents throughout the country, in my constituency of Lincoln and elsewhere, but let us not pretend that this Government have taken the same steps as the previous Government. We took a series of steps, and we took them quickly and decisively.
I am not suggesting to the hon. Member that what we have done is enough—no one could hear this discussion and think it is enough; no one could have listened to the UN Security Council yesterday afternoon and think it is enough. But there is a difference between saying that there is more to be done and saying that nothing has been done.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
After 70 days of aid being blockaded, we are watching an entirely preventable famine unfold in real time in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Israeli Government’s anti-NGO Bill seeks to restrict the ability of lifesaving humanitarians to operate, and instead militarises aid delivery in violation of international humanitarian law. I thank the Minister for all his efforts and for his challenge on this point, but will he continue to challenge the Israeli Government on it, and does he agree that there has to be accountability?
Mr Falconer
I am familiar with the draft legislation in the Knesset, and we are engaging on the questions it raises.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work—it must sometimes feel very lonely on that Front Bench—and particularly welcome the urgent session that we managed to secure at the United Nations, but things have become more difficult in recent days, and we must ask whether we are doing enough with our allies on a number of fronts, particularly recognition. A private letter has been sent by dozens of my colleagues on this side of the House, and there is unity on both sides of the House in favour of recognition of the state of Palestine, action on sanctions for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and on the violent settlements. Above all, can we please rule out a trade deal?
Mr Falconer
I am genuinely grateful to all Members across the House who ask me questions and seek me out across the Palace to convey the force of their views on this. I have seen the letter to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I recognise, given the strength of feeling in all parts of the House, that I will be returning here almost daily. We will continue to work on the issues that my hon. Friend has outlined. I will not rehearse answers to her substantive policy questions, but I assure her that I will continue to engage with those on the Government Benches and others on the important questions that are being raised.
Ministerial Code: Compliance
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government compliance with the general principles set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The ministerial code is clear:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
That is an important principle by which this Government stand. Already in this Session there have been 146 oral statements in just 133 sitting days—more than one per day, and more than the previous Government made in the entirety of their last Session. They have included six important statements from the Prime Minister and more than 20 from the Foreign Office, as well as statements on very important issues such as today’s statement on infected blood.
The Government and I take our obligations to Parliament very seriously, and the Prime Minister and I remind Cabinet colleagues of that regularly. There are also other ways by which the Government keep the House updated, including written ministerial statements—of which there have been 633 so far in this Session—responses and appearances before Select Committees, and thousands of responses to parliamentary questions.
Although the Government remain committed to making the most important announcements on the Floor of the House, we need to balance that with other demands on the House’s time, especially when there is great interest in the other business of the day. On occasion, developments and announcements will happen when the House is not sitting, or will emerge later in the sitting day. That is why it is not always possible to make every announcement to the House first. It is also important that Members have enough time to read and digest any relevant documents, and that they are given advance notice in order to be able to question a Minister effectively and seek answers.
However, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this aspect of the ministerial code incredibly seriously, and I will continue to work with Mr Speaker and colleagues across the House to ensure that Parliament is respected, Members are informed, the Government are scrutinised effectively, and announcements are made to this House first.
Kirsty Blackman
In recent times we have seen an increasing trend of the Government failing to make statements to the House first, despite there being no barrier to them doing so. Last Thursday was a mess, with the Minister of State for Business and Trade trying to withdraw the statement on the UK-US trade agreement, despite Members having waited here for seven hours for the statement to materialise.
The decision to abolish NHS England was relayed to the House on 13 March, having been trailed in the media beforehand. On Wednesday 12 March, an urgent question was granted on an announcement that had been made the day before on the sustainable farming incentive being cancelled. On 6 March, a consultation on North sea energy that had been announced to the media the day before was relayed to the House in a statement. In February, the Government changed the refugee citizenship rules, and they still have not informed the House. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister announced the contents of the immigration White Paper via a speech that mirrored Enoch Powell, despite Parliament sitting later that day.
This is a consistent pattern of behaviour by the UK Government. I am concerned that there is little point in having a ministerial code if the Government can ignore one of the key principles with no sanction and apparently no consequences. The Government are nearly a year into their term, so disorganisation or a lack of familiarity with the rules can surely no longer be cited as reasons for consistent breaches of the code. I believe that the UK Government should adhere to the principles set out in the ministerial code, and that the Leader of the House must urgently set out how she intends to improve the situation and ensure that there is adherence.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this urgent question, and I welcome the opportunity to emphasise that I take these matters very seriously. We have made a number of very big announcements to the House, often responding to world events in real time. I recognise—and I hope she will respect this—that there are judgments to be made and, at times, a balance to be struck, and I have the best interests of the House in mind.
Although the hon. Lady did not say so, there have been many times in this parliamentary Session when statements have been made to this House long before the media or anybody else were aware of them—for example, on prison capacity, increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, the response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report into the women’s state pension age, and many others. On many of those occasions, the criticism that I received was that Members did not have enough time to properly consider the details of the statements before having the opportunity to question the Minister. Hard copies of the immigration White Paper, which is a lengthy and detailed document, were made available in the Table Office at 9.30 that morning to allow Members ample time to read and consider it before questioning the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House in a session that lasted an hour and 25 minutes.
The hon. Lady raised last Thursday’s statement on the US trade deal, and I think we can all recognise that that did not happen exactly as we would have liked. International events are often outside our control, and they do not take account of UK parliamentary sitting hours. The Trade Minister made an oral statement to the House as soon as he was able to do so, and I was trying to get the balance right. We wanted to make a statement when the maximum number of Members were here; otherwise, it would not have been made for several days, because it was a Thursday and the House was rising.
We are doing a lot. We are getting on with delivering on a huge number of policies, and we have signed unprecedented trade deals with other countries. The US trade deal, which is delivering lower tariffs for steel and car manufacturing, is absolutely critical, as is the India trade deal, which is delivering for Scottish distilleries and for Scotland. We are always trying to get the balance right, and I want to emphasise my commitment to making sure that when announcements can be made to this House first, they absolutely are.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for raising this urgent question. As she has highlighted, there is a consistent pattern of failure to report first to this House, as is required by the ministerial code. She has rightly drawn attention to the farcical scenes that we had with the Trade Minister being required to deliver a statement, then having to be UQ’d the following Monday. He tried to give the same statement, without any recognition, and was rebuked by Mr Speaker for not knowing the difference.
Back in October we had the embarrassing sight of the Chancellor announcing intended changes to the Government’s fiscal rules to the media before informing Parliament, and having to be publicly rebuked by Mr Speaker for doing so. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has mentioned a number of other cases. I would highlight the Secretary of State for Education announcing tuition fees to the press before Parliament in November, the Deputy Prime Minister announcing planning reforms before the final national planning policy framework update was publicly available, and a Ministry of Defence leak on the global combat air programme in December.
As we all know, the ministerial code—the Government took great credit for seeking to strengthen it on entering office—makes very plain what the rule is. It does not say, “Judgments are to be made.” It says, “The first announcement must be made to Parliament when the most important announcements of government policy are made.” It does not say, “By the way, you can prioritise these things.” Does anyone seriously think that an announcement on trade, on planning, on tuition fees or on the global combat air programme would not be of the first importance to this House? No, because every single one of those would be vital.
It is not just a matter of the ministerial code and ministerial accountability. These decisions are made in breach of the Nolan principles of openness and the requirement for accountability, and they are made in breach of Labour’s own manifesto promise to
“restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards.”
Will the right hon. Lady encourage the independent adviser to make an inquiry, and will she look to the Cabinet Secretary to do the same with civil servants? Will she and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look to Mr Speaker for adequate enforcement of the present rules, which are being widely flouted?
Lucy Powell
I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ministerial code says that
“when Parliament is in session”,
announcements will be made to this House first. I also remind him that announcements can be made via written ministerial statements and other things as well. There is a balance to be struck, and we try to do that in the best interests of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman describes this as business question bingo. I will give him bingo: I am not going to take a lecture from him on these matters. This Government have done twice as many oral statements as his Government did in the same number of sitting days. We are ensuring that there is proper time to scrutinise Government bills—something that they did not do. We are answering significantly more written parliamentary questions than his Government ever did.
I have to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government illegally prorogued Parliament when they could not get their own way—something that he went out and defended to his constituents. The Conservatives had a Prime Minister who was found guilty of misleading this House—something that the right hon. Gentleman also defended. When an MP broke the standards rules, the Conservatives tried to change them. They had to be dragged here time and again. This Government respects Parliament. We stand up for the rights of Parliament. His Government traduced them.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that there is a certain irony in the SNP raising this matter, given the regularity with which SNP Ministers trail Scottish Government announcements in the press before coming to the Chamber in Holyrood? That was certainly the case when I served as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It is vital that important announcements on key areas of policy are made in this House first, so is it not right that this Government have come forward with so many oral statements on key areas of policy, including the vital trade deal that we have recently secured with India, which is of such importance to the Scottish economy?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a really good point: the trade deal with India is really good for Scottish distilleries. It will bring in over £1 billion of additional trade for the Scottish whisky sector. I was not aware of his experience in the Scottish Parliament, but he makes a very good point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. All of us in this Chamber were elected to represent our constituents and to put the interests of the country first, and to do that we must be able to scrutinise the Government’s plans and policies. The best way to do that is in this Chamber and as soon as possible, so we are disappointed that they have chosen to make announcements in this way.
We also note that this is not the first time. The shadow Leader of the House has mentioned various examples, and I would like to add some more. On the NHS, for example, the Government have, without any statement in the Chamber, made key decisions such as dropping cross-party talks on social care, cutting integrated care board budgets by 50% and scrapping nearly half of NHS targets. The question must be: why are the Government so worried about bringing these issues to the Floor first?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for that question, but I have to disagree with her analysis. The Secretary of State for Health and his Ministers have made eight oral statements to the House so far this Session, nearly all of which have been taken by the Secretary of State himself, and they have lasted for a long time. They have been answering many written parliamentary questions, laying written ministerial statements and appearing before Select Committees. The Prime Minister himself has made six oral statements to this House, and has appeared before the Liaison Committee twice already in this Session, far outstripping his predecessors’ record. So we are accountable, although of course we can always do better and improve, which is what we seek to do. We are so busy as a Government in getting on with delivering the change that people have voted for, but we are doing our best to inform the House.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
At points over the last few years, the most senior SNP leaders in Scotland have been under police investigation, while their Government are failing, with Ayrshire ferries that should have cost £80 million costing half a billion and being years late, one in six Scots being on waiting lists and the shambolic creation of Social Security Scotland costing double at £700 million. With this constant waste of taxpayers’ money, does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP should not be looked to as the model of good government?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes the very important point that we should all hold ourselves to high standards of accountability and transparency, and perhaps the Scottish nationalist party should do that as the Scottish Government.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is an attentive Leader of the House, and I hope the Government show the same degree of loyalty to her after a tough couple of weeks that she is showing to them. Although I do acknowledge that the Government make many statements to the House, all too often they make them to the media first, as you noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your announcement on Monday:
“Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear”.—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 47.]
Will the Leader of the House take back the message, even if she cannot confess it on the Floor of the House, that they are going too far and they need to stop?
Lucy Powell
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind remarks. He is a very attentive Member in raising matters with me at business questions where the Government are falling short of our commitment to transparency and openness on ministerial questions, correspondence and so on, which I follow up for him.
As I said in my opening remarks, we endeavour to make these important announcements to the House first when the House is in session. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at times those announcements are not made because the House is not in session or we want to give Members ample time to fully consider the detailed documentation sitting alongside them. I reassure him, however, that I speak to my Cabinet colleagues about this very regularly, as does the Prime Minister, and I speak to Mr Speaker about it as well, and we will continue to raise our game to ensure that big, important statements are brought to the House.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to the detail the Leader of the House has set out in her response to the urgent question, can she say a little more about the modernisation agenda she is championing? I refer Members to the fact that I am a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is so ably chaired by the Leader of the House. Does she agree that all Members on both sides of the House should take the agenda seriously, so that we can faithfully and to the fullest of our ability serve the constituents whom we are here to serve?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, he knows that I am determined to ensure that this House of Commons, and Parliament, becomes and remains the crucible of national debate once again—if, indeed, it ever was enough of a crucible—and that is one of the agendas we are delivering. I want to ensure that all Members across the House—particularly, those from the smaller parties who, in our new multi-party House of Commons, perhaps do not have the access that others do—have ample opportunity to scrutinise Government legislation and make the most of this House of Commons. I want to proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement, so that every Member of this House feels they are able to scrutinise and hold to account the Government of the day.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. It is not the first time that she has had to raise this issue during her parliamentary career. It appears that whoever is on the Government Benches conveniently forgets everything they said when they were on the Opposition Benches. The Leader of the House will recall the former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), warning the then Tory Government:
“Parliament must be told first: we are not irrelevant.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 1169.]
That warning is as true for this Labour Government as it was for the previous Tory Administration. Is what we are witnessing a case of acute amnesia or simply a belief that it is now their turn to treat Members of the House with contempt?
Lucy Powell
I disagree with the hon. Member’s analysis. As I have made absolutely clear, this Government have made 145 statements in 133 sitting days, which is more than one a day. The vast majority of those oral statements have been made by Secretaries of State, which we did not see under the previous Government. Indeed, for many months, I and others were calling for the then Foreign Secretary to come to this House to answer questions, which the previous Government blocked because he was in the other place. We have laid 633 written statements and answered thousands more parliamentary questions in this Session. I take very seriously our duty to lay ourselves open for transparency, scrutiny and openness with this House, and we will continue to strive for ever-increasing respect and standards.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for Dunfermline and Dollar—which was, after all, where the infamous campervan was found—I have had a front row seat for the SNP’s commitment to transparency. Having heard more from SNP Members about their position on transparency and openness, does the Leader of the House agree that it is scandalous for them to raise transparency when it took freedom of information requests to find out more about when the former First Minister met the President of Turkey to discuss, among other issues, Scottish trade?
Lucy Powell
I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I do not need to add to it.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I think it would be fair to say that this is not the first Government who have disregarded this particular provision of the ministerial code, but may I put it to the Leader of the House that if the charge is that the Government, for their own calculated and tactical advantage, have breached the ministerial code by announcing something outside this Chamber, surely the person determining whether such a breach has occurred cannot be the leader of that Government? Is it not time to look again at the recommendations made by, among others, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was once a member, about how the decision maker as to whether the ministerial code has been breached should be the independent adviser on ministerial standards, not the Prime Minister?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. and learned Member will know that the independent adviser on the ministerial code appointed by the previous Government was reappointed by this Government, and that the independent adviser’s powers were strengthened to be able to initiate inquiries. Those inquiries do not now need to be initiated by the Prime Minister.
We are raising standards when it comes to Members of Parliament, and Ministers as well. We are holding ourselves accountable to much higher standards than happened under the previous Government. I would just reiterate for the House that the ministerial code says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
There are times when Parliament is not in session, and announcements are brought to the House at other times.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
As a new Member of this House, I have noticed that on almost every single day on which Parliament sits, there is a statement from the Government, alongside, quite rightly, urgent questions. Will the Leader of the House use the Modernisation Committee to look at more ways that we can scrutinise the work of the Government without slowing down the delivery of government, which is needed to rebuild Britain?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the balance of business in a day. We are bringing forward a number of key pieces of legislation, and hon. Members from across the House want ample time to scrutinise that legislation. Obviously, statements and urgent questions can eat into the time for doing that; a balance needs to be struck. The Modernisation Committee is looking at these issues—at how we can best use parliamentary time to ensure that the Government are adequately scrutinised and held accountable, including by Back Benchers, every sitting day.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I was here on Thursday, responding as shadow health Minister to the debate on brain tumours. The debate was brought forward because of the delay to the statement on the US trade deal. We were waiting for almost an hour for that statement. Can the Leader of the House confirm that there was no pressure from the Prime Minister, or indeed Donald Trump, to ensure that the announcement was made? She has repeatedly referred to what happens if the House is not sitting, but the House was sitting all day on Thursday. In fact, many Members had to change travel plans and meetings to be in the Chamber. The business was changed purely so that a press conference could happen before the statement in the Chamber. Can she rule out pressure from the Prime Minister or Donald Trump on this occasion?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely can rule that out. As I said, an agreement on the very important UK-US trade deal was emerging, and events were fast-moving; the timing was changing throughout the day. The deal was not agreed until the announcement was made. We were trying to balance those factors throughout the day. It was made clear to the House earlier in the day that there would be a statement once it could happen, and the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security came to this House as soon as possible. We were mindful of the fact that there were many people in the Gallery for the Backbench Business debate on brain tumours, which the hon. Gentleman talked about. We were trying to not disrupt the business of the House that day, but sometimes big global events happen, and the people in charge of those big global events are not considering the sitting hours, or the wellbeing of Members of Parliament. The timing was not the Prime Minister’s, either.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is the ministerial code binding, optional, or merely aspirational? Given the blatant disregard of what the code says about making statements, can the House have confidence that Ministers adhere diligently to the other requirements of the code?
Lucy Powell
Ministers are subject to the ministerial code, and the Prime Minister judges Ministers by their adherence to it. As I said, the independent adviser on the ministerial code has a new power, given to him by the Prime Minister, to instigate inquiries relating to the ministerial code. I reiterate that the ministerial code says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
There are many ways in which that can be done, other than through oral statements on the Floor of the House.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In early November, Mr Speaker asked the Secretary of State for Education in this Chamber to start a leak inquiry to find out why the announcement that tuition fees would be raised was first made to the press, rather than the House. It is now mid-May. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when that inquiry will report? Has it actually begun?
Lucy Powell
The Secretary of State for Education made absolutely clear to the House, then and on a subsequent occasion, her fury that elements of the announcement were leaked moments before she stood at the Dispatch Box to make a very important announcement to this House. The announcement had hitherto been kept completely under wraps, and no one had sight of it. She has spoken to Mr Speaker about that. I will ensure that any findings from that investigation are reported to the hon. Lady.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We have seen the contempt in which the Government hold the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, pensioners and the disabled, and their contempt for Scotland’s energy sector, job creators and the hospice sector, but that is all a function of policy. Policy is discretional and therefore, for better or worse—usually worse—legitimate. Adhering to the ministerial code is not a matter of discretion. To be honest, it is a little beneath the Leader of the House to say, “We don’t announce things to Parliament first every time, but we do some of the time, and sometimes the House isn’t sitting.” Every example presented to her today relates to a time when the House was sitting. When will she relay to the Government and the Prime Minister that Members are severely annoyed by the Government’s repeated inaction? For her information, contrary to what is being said by the three Scottish craws sitting on a wall behind her, there is no such duty on Scottish Government Ministers as that set out in section 9.1 of the ministerial code.
Lucy Powell
As I have made clear, we take the ministerial code, and respect for this House and Parliament, incredibly seriously. We have driven up standards in that regard—standards that were, as I have said, woefully not upheld by the previous Government, who disregarded Parliament time after time. Can things improve? Can we do better? Of course we can, and we do our very best to. I remind the House that many times, when statements have been made to this House first, I have got the criticism from many colleagues that they were not able to consider the issues properly before questioning the Minister. We need to get that right, too. We are doing our very best, and we will continue to drive up standards.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her urgent question. The people of Britain have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is really important that what we do in this place, since the Labour Government came to power and from this day forward, is aimed at rebuilding that trust. What reassurance will the Minister give me, other Members of this House and our electorate that the Government will not deliberately or knowingly breach the ministerial code going forward?
Lucy Powell
As I have said, I am determined to ensure that the House of Commons becomes and remains the crucible of national debate, and has the highest standards and the best behaviour and culture. We have been looking at some of those issues on the Modernisation Committee. We must also ensure that independent Members like the hon. Gentleman and the smaller parties have their voice heard in this House. I think this House has shown itself at times to have all those things. I have taken steps to raise standards by taking action on MPs’ second jobs, and to ensure that those who misbehave are not on the estate and have action taken against them. I will continue to do that. I hope that he, the smaller parties and other parties across the House will join us in taking steps to ensure that we have the best behaviour and the highest standards, and that this House can hold the Government to account and be the crucible of national debate that we all want it to be.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s work to respond to the recommendations made in the infected blood inquiry’s 20 May 2024 report. I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on this work.
On 20 May 2024, the then Prime Minister issued an apology on behalf of the state for the devastating impact that the use of infected blood and infected blood products has had on countless lives. That was echoed by the current Prime Minister, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench. I once again reiterate that apology wholeheartedly. No Member of this House will be in any doubt of the harm resulting from the infected blood scandal. This Government are firm that we must listen to the infected blood community and the inquiry and make tangible changes to the way that our institutions conduct themselves. As the inquiry’s report made clear, however, an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and I am here today to set out the actions we are taking to respond to the inquiry’s recommendations.
Last week, the inquiry held further hearings on the timeliness and adequacy of the Government’s response on compensation. I attended to give evidence, along with members of the community who have been impacted by this scandal; I encourage all Members to listen to the incredibly moving testimonies of those impacted. The inquiry has set out its intention to publish a further report, and the Government remain committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.
On 17 December 2024, the Government published our initial response to the inquiry’s recommendations. I laid before the House an accompanying written statement, in which I committed to come before the House with a comprehensive update on our response to each of the inquiry’s recommendations within a year of the inquiry’s report. This statement fulfils that commitment. I am grateful for the engagement of all Members across the House, and am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Government’s progress today. Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work. The recommendations he made are wide-ranging, well considered and necessarily detailed.
The Government have worked closely with the devolved Governments to make progress on the implementation of the recommendations, which we hope will lead to meaningful change. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their co-operation, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her leadership on the recommendations for which her Department is responsible. I also thank Health Ministers in the devolved Governments: the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health in Scotland, Jenni Minto; the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Wales, Jeremy Miles; and the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt. Their engagement has been invaluable in ensuring that our approach is as unified as possible across the whole United Kingdom. The Government will continue to engage closely with the devolved Governments on issues such as support for advocacy charities and implementation by the national health service.
I recognise that for many in the community, the Government’s actions come after decades have passed. There is nothing that can put right the damage done by inaction on the part of multiple previous Governments, and it is not my intention for this statement to diminish that. My priority now is focusing on delivering meaningful change to ensure that the scandal of infected blood, among many other scandals, is never allowed to happen again.
I turn now to the recommendations. Alongside this statement, I have published an accompanying paper on gov.uk setting out in detail the Government’s response to each of the recommendations, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of the Houses. Equally, I am firm on the importance of these recommendations to the infected blood community, and I am writing today to community representatives to inform them of the publication of the Government’s response.
The UK and devolved Governments have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations either in full or in principle, and implementation is under way across Government, arm’s length bodies and healthcare settings. Where recommendations are accepted in principle, we have sought to explain the rationale for doing so, balancing agreement with the spirit of the recommendations and their implementation. Some are subject to future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care.
I have noted the recommendations that have, quite rightly, drawn attention from across this House in previous debates, so I will take a moment to touch on those today. I turn first to the recommendation on compensation. I am grateful to those who have attended previous debates on this matter in the House; indeed, many are present today. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority delivered on the Government’s commitment to provide the first full compensation payments by the end of last year. IBCA publishes its data on compensation on a monthly basis; as of 6 May, payments totalling more than £96 million have been made. IBCA continues to scale up its operations to deliver compensation as quickly as possible and has confirmed plans to contact an average of 100 people every week to begin their claims. I am pleased to announce today that the interim chair, Sir Robert Francis KC, who developed vital work to inform the design of the compensation scheme and has overseen its delivery to this point, will continue in his role for a further 18 months.
Another recommendation of particular interest to right hon. and hon. Members is recommendation 10, relating to funding for charities providing patient advocacy services. I am pleased that last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wrote to the charities confirming that £500,000 of funding has been made available for this financial year to ensure that the vital patient advocacy work they do for the infected blood community is sustained. Officials are now meeting the charities to begin the grant process to finalise the awards.
The Government recognise the importance of recommendation 5 on ending the defensive culture in the civil service. It is imperative we get this right so that the public can put their trust in institutions that have let down not just the infected blood community, but victims of other scandals that have taken place over decades. The Prime Minister has committed to legislation on a duty of candour, which he has confirmed will apply to public authorities and public servants, and include criminal sanctions. We are consulting on the issue and working to draft the best, most effective version of a Hillsborough law as part of our wider efforts to create a politics of public service.
The inquiry’s final recommendation relates to giving effect to the recommendations it has made. I am only too aware of the strength of feeling here and the need to ensure that the infected blood scandal does not fade from the public consciousness. A lot more needs to be done, and, as I made clear to the inquiry in my evidence last week, I am open to considering how we can improve the Government’s actions to ensure that we deliver justice for the victims of this devastating scandal. As progress continues to be made, my colleagues and I will report on the recommendations for which we are responsible. We are committed to transparency and accountability, and will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course, which will be regularly updated as progress is made.
The victims of this scandal have suffered immeasurably. I pay tribute once again to the infected blood community for their courage, perseverance and determination to demand justice for the wrongs that have been done to them. I hope that this update provides them with some reassurance that we are learning from and acting on the mistakes of the past, and that where there is more to do, this Government will do it. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. The infected blood scandal is one of the clearest failures of the state and public services in recent years, causing enormous harm over many years to countless victims and their families. Next week marks the first anniversary of the publication of the inquiry’s report, and I add my thanks and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work and comprehensive report.
On 21 May last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) stood at the Government Dispatch Box and made clear his determination to act on the inquiry’s report. I pay tribute to his work and thank him for the advice and support that he has given to me and the shadow Cabinet Office team on this issue since the election.
I am pleased that the Paymaster General picked up from where his predecessor left off. As I have said previously, both sides of the House speak as one on this issue, but sadly there is nothing that we or the Government can do that will undo the terrible damage caused by this scandal. No amount of money will bring back those who have been lost, and no amount of lessons learned can make up for the suffering of those who contracted serious illnesses because of contaminated blood, but Ww would be not only failing in our duty, but failing all those who have died and all those who continue to live with life-changing conditions if we did not take up this battle on their behalf.
To do this, we must directly address the profound distress, anger and fear that is being expressed by victims and their families at the pace of the roll-out of the full compensation scheme. Victims in recent hearings have referred to the wait as “torture” and “disgraceful”—to mention just a few cases. Of course, the gravity of those concerns has been underscored by the decision to re-open the infected blood inquiry for a further report on compensation. Although we support that decision, we need to make sure that it does not delay the proper compensation for those who have already lost so much.
With every week and month that passes, we know that more infected and affected individuals will, sadly, die before receiving their full and final compensation. This underscores the human cost of every single day of delay. Therefore, although I recognise that the compensation authority was set up precisely to be independent of Government in operational matters, I ask the Minister whether he is content with the current pace of delivery and, if not, what he and the Government are doing to help David Foley and his team to speed up pay-outs to dying victims.
Let me turn to other recommendations made by the inquiry. May I ask the Paymaster General what progress has been made on recommendation 6 on monitoring liver damage for people who are infected with hepatitis C? On recommendation 8, which is on finding the undiagnosed, what action has been taken to ensure that patients who had transfusions before 1996 are offered a blood test for hepatitis C? Can the Paymaster General update the House on how many such tests have so far been carried out, and what assessment he has made of the additional infected and affected patients who may now be eligible for compensation?
The journey to rebuild trust with the victims and their families will be long and requires not only words of apology and commitment but, crucially, demonstrable action that proves that the Government and, indeed, this House, are listening and responding. The acknowledgement that the current compensation scheme has not yet won the full trust and confidence of the community is a start, and I hope the Government will continue to take these concerns seriously to put in place the robust changes that are necessary. We will support them in that work.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Points of order come after the statement.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman’s point order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been reassured by the Department that the statement has been sent and is on its way; I hope that deals with that issue.
Let me say to the shadow Minister that the cross-party approach that we have taken has been very important. It was the approach, as he knows, that I took with my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), to whom I have often paid tribute in this House for the diligent way in which he pursued this matter.
The shadow Minister asked me about the current pace of delivery. I am restless for progress, and will not be satisfied with the pace of delivery until everyone who is eligible for compensation has received it. He asked me about what we will do about the pace of compensation going forward. IBCA has adopted a test-and-learn approach, which has now been completed, and I expect to see a significant increase in the pace of the payments. While respecting IBCA’s operational independence, I will be holding it to account, and quite rightly I will be held to account by this House over the pace of payments. I also stand ready to assist IBCA in whatever way I can to speed up the payments.
On the monitoring of liver damage, a new surveillance registry will be set up. The shadow Minister asked about the blood test prior to 1996; I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, who is beside me on the Front Bench, to write to the shadow Minister with the precise figures.
Overall, the whole House is united on this matter. We all want to see the pace of payments speed up, and that is exactly what I am seeking to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call any Member to speak, I would like to say that we have looked into Gregory Stafford’s point regarding the lack of copies of the statement. I understand that the Department has now sent the statement to the Vote Office, and it is currently being printed and will be with us shortly. I know that the Minister will be looking into this problem and I am sure that he is as dissatisfied with the situation as the House is.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I met two of my constituents who have been tragically affected by this scandal and attended the hearings last week. They told me what an emotional day it had been—almost like a family reunion in some ways—but they also spoke of their immense frustration at still having to fight through the long wait for justice that remains. They told me again that the pace of payments to victims and families is far too slow, and it is still unclear what evidence they need to provide to support their claim.
I welcome the fact that the Government have identified £11.8 billion to pay compensation, and that, for the first time, this has been properly budgeted for, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the challenge now is to ensure that trust is built and maintained as we complete this process. Will he tell the House what he can do to ensure that the evidential requirements are clear to families to allow them to prepare for being contacted, that payments are accelerated, and that justice is delivered to everybody affected by this appalling scandal?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hearing last week was an extremely moving experience. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the inquiry. His point about evidence is important. First, so much happened a long time ago, which makes evidence difficult to source. Secondly, Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry also identified evidence of deliberate document destruction. For those two reasons in particular, it is essential that IBCA takes a sympathetic, enabling view to the evidence that is required and has caseworkers assisting victims in finding the evidence that they need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve.
Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff,
“People infected and affected do not have time on their side.”
To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed?
It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial.
The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, with regard to the current position on payments, just over £96 million has been paid, and IBCA has invited 677 claimants to begin the process. I want to be clear about the 2029 date to which the hon. Lady referred. It is correct to say that there are, as I regard them, backstop dates of 2027 for the infected and 2029 for the affected, but that is what they are—backstops. They are not targets. The target is to make the payments as soon as possible.
The hon. Lady asked about evidence, which I dealt with in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper). She refers to a situation where someone’s medical evidence has for whatever reason been destroyed, and that is precisely the kind of situation where we expect IBCA to take a sympathetic approach.
On the duty of candour, the Government remain committed to bringing in duty of candour legislation, but it is important that we get it right and ensure that the legislation will actually achieve the shared objective that I am sure the whole House has of trying to prevent this type of scandal from happening again. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, so it is because we want to get the legislation right that we are taking a bit more time.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I am in constant contact with the contaminated blood community, and they are furious and frustrated in equal measure at the lack of progress with the claims being processed. I was speaking to a haemophiliac, who as a child was unknowingly used for research all those years ago. He asked why it is that he is likely to get less in compensation after being used in an experiment than a drunken driver who crashed his car and needed a blood transfusion. I think that is a fair question. He also asked whether Members of this House understand the stress and mental torment that individuals are going through, when they are waiting on a Tuesday night for close of play to see whether they are one of the lucky hundred to have their claims processed the following week. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for everything he has done, but I think those are fair points. Does he think they are fair?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is and has been throughout this process a powerful advocate for the victims. While this is a broad tariff-based scheme, it is vital that individuals’ suffering and circumstances are reflected in the awards that are made. To his latter point, I know the agony that victims are still going through in having to wait, and I know that he shares my desire to push forward with the payments as quickly as possible.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Can I start by commending the approach that the Paymaster General is taking? I know that he is totally sincere about getting justice and is trying his best. However, I think he knows in his heart of hearts that the system that has been put in place is not working. I have constituents, such as Sue Collins, who are asking why in March IBCA had processed the claims of only 250-odd people out of 4,000 people, when they are known to us and have been on previous payment schemes. Even more worrying is the fact that IBCA is saying that it is aiming to process a majority—that could be just 51%—by the end of 2027. Does he not agree that the right target for IBCA would be to process the vast majority—more than 90%, let us say—by the end of this year, and that it should commit to that? That is what needs to happen, because two people are dying every single week, and justice delayed really is justice denied.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government on this matter when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asks about infected people who are known already because they are registered to schemes, and he is clearly right to identify that particular group in terms of prioritisation and what is known. I said last week to the inquiry that I am open to changes to the scheme that do not in themselves cause further delay. That is the open approach that I took last week at the inquiry, and it is the open approach I repeat to the House today.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and update. I know the sincerity with which he wants to deliver this culture change—this being one of many examples of failures by the state that we absolutely have to correct. As has been said by Members on both sides of the House and by constituents to me, speed in the delivery of compensation to infected and affected individuals is of paramount importance. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the conversations he is having with the devolved nations, in particular Wales, to bring efficacy to the recommendations?
Could my right hon. Friend offer any advice to my constituent Suzanne Morgan, who very recently visited my surgery? Her mother Marie Jupe died due to infected blood, but as her mother was not registered with an existing infected blood scheme or the Alliance House organisations scheme, Suzanne is not eligible for any compensation. Will he meet me to discuss that case?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To my hon. Friend’s latter point, my thoughts are with Suzanne. In respect of Suzanne’s mother, although the registration deadline for the infected blood support scheme has passed, it does not mean she is not entitled to compensation. There would be an entitlement to compensation.
With regard to the point about the whole United Kingdom, one of the issues, which I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate, is that the awful days when the infected blood products were being imported were in the pre-devolution age. Many of the recommendations require measures to be implemented across the NHS, but health is of course devolved. The undertaking I give to the House is that I will continue to work closely with Ministers in the devolved Administrations to get the equity that my hon. Friend talks about regarding the recommendations across the UK.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Clearly, getting to a good and timely operation of the compensation scheme will take the Paymaster General’s personal attention, and I know that he will give it that attention because of his dedication to getting this right. Could he give an update to the House on the anticipated memorial dedicated specifically to the children who were infected at Treloar’s?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is absolutely right that we have both a national memorial and a memorial dedicated specifically to the children who suffered so much at Treloar’s, and it is right that the memorials both recognise what has happened and ensure that it will be remembered by future generations. The Government are following the inquiry’s recommendation that a steering committee be formed to decide what memorials are provided and where, with consideration being given as well to memorials in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The membership of the steering committee will reflect the experiences of all routes of transmission, those infected and those affected, and crucially it will contain representatives of all the UK’s Administrations.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I fully agree with the need for urgency that has been reiterated on both sides of the House. I have spoken to constituents who are frustrated, and the turmoil and distress they are in is immense. Will the Minister provide more detail on how individuals are being kept updated on the progress of their claims? What support is provided to address those cases, in terms of dedicated caseworkers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the first point, IBCA publishes a regular monthly newsletter with data of the payments being made. On support, the money that the Government have announced for the charities that provide such vital patient advocacy is hugely important. In respect of those who are making claims, I have signed off money for both legal support and financial advice, which is hugely important too.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister referred briefly to something called a duty of candour, which will try to avoid a repetition of what was described as a
“defensive culture in the civil service”.
Will he expand on that phenomenon? It is quite extraordinary, is it not, that when people in all innocence were infected with lethal diseases by the NHS, civil servants should have gathered round to deny them the help and compensation they needed? Surely some sort of sanction ought to be involved. Will anyone be held to account for this, because otherwise, it will happen again, won’t it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To the right hon. Gentleman’s point about potential criminal sanctions, I have always said that I stand ready to provide whatever evidence might be requested of the Cabinet Office and across Government to any investigation. To his point about a duty of candour, Sir Brian Langstaff said that there was not an explicit conspiracy; rather, there was a culture of institutional defensiveness whereby individual public servants put personal and institutional reputation above the public good. As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will bring forward legislation on a duty of candour. However, it is not just about legislation, landmark though it is; it is about leadership across public service to change culture, which will be important in the years ahead.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement and for his correspondence on this issue on behalf of my constituent Alex Robinson. Alex lost her father in 2006 to this scandal, having already lost her mother as a child. She was her father’s carer from the age of 13. She is concerned that when a deceased victim leaves no spouse or partner, the estate is not entitled to the same compensation, irrespective of the role any member of that estate may have played in the victim’s life. Does the Minister agree that there are exceptional and unique cases, such as Alex’s, and that they need to be looked at differently? Will he meet me to explore how we can ensure that that happens?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think the thoughts of the whole House are with my hon. Friend’s constituent, Alex, regarding the loss of her parents. On the point about carers, they are eligible for compensation under the scheme. If my hon. Friend is willing to write to me, I will be more than happy to have an individual discussion and correspondence on that case.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Last week’s hearings were both fascinating and disturbing. One discrepancy was pointed out to me, however, about bereaved partners and whether their loved one died before 31 March. Partners of those who died before 31 March could receive up to 75% of their support payment, whereas newly bereaved partners are no longer able to register for those payments. These people were often forced to give up their career to care for their loved ones and were totally dependent upon those payments. Will the Minister commit to reviewing and rectifying that unfairness, so that no bereaved partner is left behind simply because of the date of their loved one’s death?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To be absolutely clear, the cut-off date is about registration for the support schemes; it is not a cut-off date for entitlement to compensation. When issues around this were raised with me at the inquiry last week, I said that if there was a particular issue around a gap between cessation of payment and when compensation might be received, I was willing to go away and look at it, and I will do that. The test that I apply is whether we are pushing this scheme forward. We have to ensure that I, and collectively we, do not do things that would cause even further delay.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
One of the first pieces of correspondence that I received as a new MP on 10 July last year was from my constituent Robert Dickie, who passionately told me about his brother, who died aged 31 from AIDS and hepatitis C after being infected with contaminated blood products. I therefore welcome today’s update. The Government recently announced that they have allocated funding for charities, which is a recommendation from the inquiry. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the funding gets to those charities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The charities have done a remarkable job in supporting victims and in patient advocacy. I know that there have been meetings already with officials, and he can be assured that I am working with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is here on the Front Bench, to ensure that that money gets to the charities as quickly as possible.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
As the Minister is aware, my constituent Gary Webster has had to live with HIV and hepatitis C since being given infected blood as a pupil at Treloar’s. Gary’s health is failing fast and he fears that he will not live to see compensation. Will the Minister give Gary and the other surviving Treloar’s boys any reassurance that they will be invited to claim for compensation this year?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
IBCA has been set up in such a way that it is operationally independent, and I respect that independence. As I indicated in a previous answer—indeed, the hon. Lady has raised Gary’s case with me on a number of occasions—I stand ready, first, to hold IBCA to account; and secondly, to give support as required by IBCA to ensure that we are moving forward and quickening the pace after the test-and-learn approach that it has used.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Families in Worcester have spent years in limbo, grieving the loss of loved ones while navigating decades of delays and bureaucratic mazes that were handed down by the very systems intended to support them. I therefore welcome this statement of ambition in urgently delivering compensation and justice to those both infected and affected. The changes outlined at the end of March relating to people who lose their spouses as a result of infected blood are causing anxiety in my constituency. My constituents are concerned that the injustice of delay will be extended to them more severely than to others. Will the Paymaster General reassure widows and widowers whose spouses die from April this year that they will not be waiting years and years for support payments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place, this is not a deadline to claim compensation; it is a deadline for applying for the support schemes. As I also indicated in my previous answer, if injustice arises from a gap in time, I will look at that.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As a number of Members have said to the Minister, speed is obviously of the essence. I have two questions. First, even though I hear him say that there is a backstop date by which he wants everything to be completed, would it be possible for individual applicants to have a target landing date on which IBCA will contact them? That way, their expectations are managed and people can think about their affairs in due course. Secondly, can the Minister say, hand on heart, that IBCA has enough resources? If it had twice as many people, could it move twice as fast?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am sure that he, as a former Minister, will understand that I respect IBCA’s operational independence in terms of the payments that are being made, but as I have indicated, I stand ready to help to push this forward. Secondly, absolutely there are adequate resources here. We have allocated £11.8 billion to this scheme. He used the example of the number of caseworkers, and I stand ready to assist with that in order to push things forward with IBCA.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which fulfils his earlier promise to make one, and for his correspondence with me on a specific case. I also welcome the fact that the Government are committed, in principle or in full, to all the recommendations made by the inquiry. Last week at the inquiry I met my constituent Martin Threadgold, one of the victims of this scandal. Martin has expressed to me several concerns about the pace at which victims are being compensated, and those concerns have been echoed across the House today. May I ask two questions on Martin’s behalf? First, £11.8 billion was allocated in the Budget to this scheme, so can the Minister confirm how much has been paid out so far? Secondly, will he use his good offices to ensure that IBCA pays out as many claims as possible and as fast as it possibly can?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this—he speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituent. As I indicated in an earlier answer, just over £96 million has been paid out, but I will continue to use my ministerial office, as well as working to hold IBCA to account, to move from what has been IBCA’s test-and-learn phase into a different phase and start to really speed up these payments.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing to lead on this matter and bring justice to all the victims, and indeed for his statement today. Is it his understanding that victims of the infected blood scandal should not be worse off in the transition from the interim payments to the new compensation scheme? I have spoken to one victim, a constituent, who seems to have been offered a compensation offer that is much, much reduced compared with the offer he previously received under the special category mechanism.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The issue of how the special category mechanism is translated across into what is known as the health supplemental route in relation to infected people is something I discussed before the inquiry last week. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not know the facts of the specific case he is talking about, but if he is willing to write to me with the two different figures and the way in which his constituent feels that he is worse off, I will be more than happy to look at it.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The partner of Helen, my constituent from Farnham, died in 1994 from infected blood. Unfortunately, Helen now has stage 4B ovarian cancer, so she is not in a great state. She wrote to the Chief Secretary in August and, despite chasing this up numerous times, it took months for a rather unsympathetic response from the Chief Secretary to come back. I know that the Paymaster General is keen to speed this up for those infected, but there are also plenty of people who were affected and whose time is short, so can he commit to speeding up the process for them, too?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we have people who are infected and people who are affected in a terrible way by this scandal, and he speaks powerfully about Helen and the particular circumstances she finds herself in. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with Helen. I have not, to my knowledge, seen the piece of correspondence that he is talking about, but if he wants to write to me directly at the Cabinet Office about Helen’s circumstances, I am happy to look at that. I should add that I expect payments to the affected to begin by the end of this year.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Minister for today’s update. Although I welcome the progress that has been made on the compensation scheme, as he has highlighted, I once again have to highlight the case of my constituent who was infected with hepatitis C during a transplant operation when she was 15. She has suffered terrible physical and mental illness throughout most of her life. The fact that she was infected in 1993, after the cut-off date for the support scheme, means that she has had no formal acknowledgment of her suffering from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and no support payments or interim payments. Can the Minister formally address the concerns of unregistered infected people from that period from 1991 to 1996, when we know people were still being infected, and commit to urgently recognising their suffering and the urgency of their compensation claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Again, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, given the terrible experience that she has clearly had. With regard to the category of victims he is talking about—unregistered, living, infected people—he is absolutely right to raise their position. The objective of this compensation scheme is to ensure that every victim, whatever their circumstances, receives the compensation they are due, and that obviously includes his constituent.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I will be forever indebted to my constituent Clive Smith, who is also the president of the Haemophilia Society. He has been a long-standing advocate and a voice for those victims seeking justice for being affected and infected. Of course, time is of the essence and many victims still feel disillusioned and that the Government are dragging their heels. While the Government have accepted publicly that victims will die before they get the compensation they are owed, as has been referenced in this Chamber, surely this just illustrates that the system is not going fast enough. What reassurance can the Minister provide that compensation will be delivered at speed and that the system will be as simple as possible for those affected and infected to apply for compensation? Also, what reassurance can he provide that they will be kept informed and updated as part of that process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have met Clive Smith and I pay tribute to the campaigning work that he has done over many years. On updating, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important—that is why IBCA publishes regular newsletters with updates on the statistics—but he also identifies a statistic that should give us all pause for thought, which is that a victim of this scandal is still dying every few days. That shows the impetus and the imperative to speed these compensation payments up, and that is absolutely what I am committed to do.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
A constituent of mine infected with hepatitis C and under the special category mechanism has written to express their distress that earlier this year supplementary regulations removed the provisions, which they had previously been promised, to bring their compensation in line with those with cirrhosis. The group were assured that there would not need to go through another round of evidence gathering, yet they have been left without recourse through this mechanism. Will the Minister explain why these provisions were changed, what redress is available to this cohort of approximately 915 people, and what steps will be brought forward to ensure that further reassurances are not breached?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the special category mechanism is one that I was asked about in front of the inquiry last week. It relates to conditions that qualified under the special category mechanism, some of which go into the core route for infected people and some of which go into the supplemental route. I gave an undertaking to the inquiry last week that I would look at whether there were particular issues, and I think that is what he is identifying in relation to his constituent. As I said quite openly to the inquiry last week, the test that I use around changes to the scheme is to ensure that it does not cause even further delay.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s statement, but I too would like to identify the gaping hole in the compensation scheme that relates to the special category mechanism. I point out that some of my constituents are in very poor health and their lives may be limited time-wise, yet they will end up with less compensation than someone who is in stage one and is healthy. At every point throughout the process, the compensation scheme has said that the SCM infected should be compensated. The infected blood inquiry said the same thing. The Government’s own expert group also said in August 2024, until they were hauled back into the Cabinet Office and then they changed their mind, that they must have compensation. I invite the Paymaster General to meet me and my affected constituent—it would have to be online, and it would be with his carer because this gentleman is very ill and suffering dreadfully, and yet he seems to have been excluded from getting fair compensation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Again, the hon. Lady quite reasonably raises the issue of the special category mechanism, which I answered a question about from her hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). On the specific case she talks about, I would be grateful if she wrote to me with all the details, and then I would be more than happy to ensure she gets a reply as soon as possible.
Points of Order
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given notice to the Speaker’s Office and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) of this point of order. I refer to column 95 of Hansard on Monday 12 May. In an intervention on the Minister in the debate on border security and immigration, the Member claimed that
“more than 600 illegal migrants have entered this country today. They could get up to all sorts of mischief, and commit crimes and maybe even acts of terrorism. Does she agree that these young men crossing the channel should be immediately detained and deported, along with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?”—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 95.]
Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this kind of language, innuendo and inaccuracy is unbecoming of this place and not fit to be uttered in this building, and that Members when they speak in Parliament should show respect for each other, rather than risk bringing our whole political process into disrepute? I have no problem with debate, but people should not stoop to abuse, fundamental inaccuracies and conjecture, as the hon. Member did, and I have informed him so already.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. The right hon. Member has put his point on the record. While I am not persuaded that anything unparliamentary occurred in the debate, I remind all Members that “good temper and moderation”, in the words of “Erskine May”, should be
“the characteristics of parliamentary debate.”
I encourage all Members to act towards each other with courtesy.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given prior notice of my point of order to the Speaker’s Office. I seek your guidance on a matter concerning procedure relating to the ability of Members to hold the Government to account. Yesterday, I attempted to table a question relating to the use of RAF Akrotiri by Israeli bomber planes but was blocked. I received the following response: “The Government has blocked questions on the use of military bases”. The reasoning for that block was given as an answer from the Minister to a similar question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 4 October, with the Minister responding on 14 October. Since then, six questions have been tabled relating to the activities of RAF Akrotiri, all without obstruction, and they all received timely answers from the Minister. Under this new ruling, all would have been ruled out of order and automatically blocked, yet they were allowed to be tabled.
Given the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in matters of defence, this raises serious concerns. Operational decisions must not be taken on an ad hoc basis to impede the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise the decisions of Government. Will you advise on whether it is in order for the Table Office to decide to block legitimate questions in this way and on what recourse Members have when attempts to scrutinise and debate Government policy and activity are being blocked?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She should raise the matter with the Table Office in the first instance. I can, however, advise her that the Minister for the Armed Forces, in response to a written parliamentary question on 14 October, indicated that the Government would not
“comment on any foreign nations’ military aircraft movement…within UK airspace or on UK overseas bases.”
It is not the Table Office but the Government that have blocked questions on this specific subject. Other questions about activities at RAF Akrotiri may none the less be in order. I advise her to talk to the Table Office, who are always happy to help.
Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave prior notice, both to the Speaker’s Office and to the Member concerned, that I intended to raise this point of order. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) appeared on Channel 4 in his role as deputy leader of Reform UK. Filming in my constituency, he called into question the future of our local power station and therefore the hundreds of jobs that it supports locally, which I know will cause real anxiety for constituents in Selby. He did not inform me that he was coming to Selby or that he intended to use our industry, our jobs and our local communities as a political football for Reform UK’s national agenda. On behalf of workers in my constituency, how might I prevent this from happening again, and how might I relay the message that if he wishes to push his anti-worker, anti-jobs and, quite frankly, anti-Yorkshire agenda, he can do so from his constituency across the border in Lincolnshire?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order—I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that he intended to raise it. As he and other Members are aware, paragraph 44 of the guide to conventions and courtesies states that
“Members must inform colleagues in advance whenever…a Member intends to visit another colleague’s constituency (except for purely private purposes). All reasonable efforts should be taken to notify the other Member and failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from the point of order made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the comments made against him were absolutely disgusting and disrespectful. The words we use in this place can have direct consequences on the outside and impact on the security of Members. What steps can be taken to hold Members to account for the language that they use in this place, so that debate is respectful at all times?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Member has placed his comments and feelings on the record.
BILLS PRESENTED
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Heidi Alexander, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ed Miliband, Hilary Benn, Ian Murray, Jo Stevens, Steve Reed and Mike Kane, presented a Bill to make provision about sustainable aviation fuel.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed with explanatory notes (Bill 240-EN).
Victims of Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (Free Access to Sentencing Remarks) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Olney, supported by Josh Babarinde, presented a Bill to require the provision, free of charge, to victims of rape and serious sexual offences of transcripts of sentencing remarks delivered following conviction for those offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 241).
Energy and Employment Rights Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Carla Denyer presented a Bill to set a timeline for the phasing out of UK oil and gas production and the decommissioning of related infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for ensuring that oil and gas workers have access to appropriate redeployment or retraining opportunities, and to involve unions and communities in the production of this plan, which should include plans for funding; to make provision for the establishment of a training fund for workers in the oil and gas industry, to which oil and gas companies would contribute by paying a levy; to make provision for a proportion of workers’ wages to be guaranteed by the state for a defined period after they leave the oil and gas industry; to introduce sectoral collective bargaining in the energy industry; to extend legislation relating to pay and conditions for UK onshore workers to cover all offshore workers in the UK Continental Shelf and UK Exclusive Economic Area; to require GB Energy’s investments to support UK jobs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 244).
Equitable Life Policyholders (Compensation)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the paying out of compensation under the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010 for persons adversely affected by maladministration in the regulation before December 2001 of the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and for connected purposes.
Most Members will know that I have, for the past 15 years, been campaigning for proper compensation for Equitable Life policyholders who lost pension savings because of Government and regulatory maladministration. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—a friend is what he is to me—has also campaigned, as have many other friends and colleagues from across the House. This has always been a cross-party campaign for justice; MPs from six political parties support the proposed Bill.
For the benefit of Members who may not be familiar with the scandal, it is a sorry saga spanning nearly a quarter of a century. The Equitable Life Assurance Society was considered the gold standard of the retirement savings world. Founded in 1762—the world’s oldest mutual insurer—it was widely respected and considered a safe place to invest a hard-earned pension. However, it turned out that in the 1990s the society was effectively being run as Ponzi scheme. Returns and bonuses were being funded by contributions from new Members. The house of cards eventually collapsed in 2000, following a House of Lords court case, which led to the inescapable conclusion that the society did not have enough money to cover its commitments. The question inevitably arose as to how the collapse of one of the biggest and apparently safest pension companies could possibly have happened.
While several inquiries were set up with varying and limited remits, it was not until the parliamentary ombudsman undertook a four-year detailed investigation that we got to the bottom of what actually happened. Although the society was clearly mismanaged, the ombudsman’s 2,800-page report published in 2008—I recommend it to colleagues for bedtime reading—concluded that there had been a decade of serial maladministration by Government Departments and their regulators, whose job it was to oversee the society in the first place. Specifically, the ombudsman concluded that the serial maladministration
“resulted in the true financial position of the society being concealed and misrepresented.”
The ombudsman further went on to say that
“the prudential regulation of the society during the relevant time period failed—and failed comprehensively.”
She said that it was not
“a system failure, but a failure properly to implement…the system of regulation that Parliament had enacted.”
It was the most serious maladministration ever discovered by the parliamentary ombudsman.
It is important to emphasise that the maladministration led to a failure of prudential regulation, which Government Departments and their agencies were responsible for. Although the management of the society had failed, the ombudsman was clear that the prudential regulators alone were responsible for scrutinising the society’s financial returns, and verifying its solvency position. They failed to do that to an acceptable standard. As a result, the society was able to continue to take people’s money, while they had no idea of the house of sand into which they were placing their hard-earned savings for those pensions.
The ombudsman made five findings of injustice that policyholders suffered because of the maladministration. Three of them were related to financial loss. In proposing redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to,
“put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
In 2010 the incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer formally accepted all the ombudsman’s findings, and apologised to the more than 1 million people affected. He accepted that the financial losses that policyholders had suffered because of the maladministration amounted to £4.3 billion. He subsequently revised that down to £4.1 billion. Despite that, the Chancellor announced that only £1.5 billion compensation would be made available as redress, citing the state of the public finances at the time. Personally, I think that where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure and accepted how much someone has lost because of that, it should provide full compensation. That is the moral, correct thing to do and, to their credit, the current Government are taking that general approach to the blood contamination and Post Office scandals, although there are clearly serious issues about agreeing individual amounts and the speed of payments in individual cases.
My Bill, however, is not about the £2.6 billion compensation still owed to those affected by the Equitable Life scandal; it is about the £1.5 billion that has already been allocated. It appears from public information, parliamentary questions, and freedom of information requests that £180 million of the allocated funding is set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people to whom it is owed. When the compensation scheme was announced in 2010, the Government decided that of the £1.5 billion made available, 37,000 annuitants would get 100% compensation via an annual top-up payment for life, with £625 million allocated and indexed at that time for that purpose. As a contingency, in case those individuals lived longer than expected, the Treasury held back £100 million. The rest—£775 million—was allocated to 895,000 non-annuitants via one-off payment, effectively giving them 22.4% of their acknowledged losses. Of that latter group, more than 100,000 people were never traced, contributing to a £24 million underspend of their allocation. In addition, the data shows that the annual compensation payments to annuitants have been running significantly below forecast, by some £54 million from the most recent figures I have seen. That means that the £100 million contingency reserve will never be spent. In total, around £180 million—over 10% of the money allocated to compensate people for their losses—is set to be kept by the Treasury, unless something is done.
The Bill that I propose would require the Treasury to pay the full value of the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation to those affected. In doing so, I would prioritise around 10,000 of the most elderly annuitants who were, in my view, unfairly excluded from compensation simply because they bought an annuity prior to the Government-imposed cut-off date of September 1992—I have never understood why that date was chosen. The reality is that those annuitants suffered the same consequences as others: reduced pension payments because of maladministration and the failure of prudential regulation. Through campaigning by Members of this House and the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government announced an ex gratia payment to that cohort in 2013, which was welcome in so far as it went.
However, that cohort should be treated the same as other annuitants. According to EMAG, ensuring that would cost around £108 million, after deducting the cost of the ex gratia payments that the cohort received. This group represents the most elderly and vulnerable policyholders. Those who are still alive are in their 80s and 90s. Many will be veterans who served and risked their life for this country, and who we have so recently celebrated and thanked. Many others worked in our national health service and other services. They should be treated fairly, in line with other annuitants. Payments can be calculated simply and quickly. The Government, the Treasury and the Prudential, which took over their policies, know who they are and where they live.
As we might imagine, the people who saved responsibly for their retirement find it difficult to understand why they have not had full redress, when the state has accepted responsibility for the failure that led to their financial losses, which have been calculated and accepted by the state. In the absence of full redress, it must surely be right that the money that has been allocated for compensation actually reaches those affected. It must also be right to prioritise the most elderly and vulnerable. That is what the Bill seeks to do, and I hope that the House will give leave for it to be introduced. It is supported by MPs from six political parties and, I am sure, by many other colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Bob Blackman, Christine Jardine, Fabian Hamilton, Sir Desmond Swayne, Siân Berry, Jim Shannon, Stephen Flynn and Andrew Rosindell present the Bill.
Bob Blackman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 242).
Great British Energy Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B.
Michael Shanks
I thank all Members of both Houses for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill. In particular, I extend my thanks to my noble Friend the Minister for Energy Security, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his expertise and, dare I say, resilience, which ensured that we reached the resolution that we are here to discuss. Lords amendment 2B was added to the Great British Energy Bill during consideration of Commons amendments, and the Government motion to accept Lords amendment 2B was passed in the other place.
The Great British Energy Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment to establish Great British Energy, which will accelerate clean power deployment, create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. We recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament and from the public on this issue, and particularly on the issue of how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its supply chains. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have consistently stated that they wholeheartedly share that concern and agree on the importance of tackling forced labour in supply chains wherever we find it. That is why we tabled Lords amendment 2B, which is the latest move in the Government’s work to tackle the issue of forced labour while we progress towards becoming a global leader in clean energy.
We expect all UK businesses to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains, and Great British Energy will be no different—in fact, we have stated many times that we expect it to be a sector leader on this matter. Lords amendment 2B makes it clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can take the appropriate steps to act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect from any responsible company.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am sure we can rely on the Minister to ensure that no solar panels are installed on British farms that are made by the Chinese Government, using slave labour. I am sure that he can assure us on that point.
Michael Shanks
I have set that out in this debate in a number of ways. We have absolutely committed that Great British Energy will not invest in any supply chains in which there is any evidence of forced labour, and the measures that we are outlining today show how we will deliver that. There is a wider question about forced labour in supply chains for which Great British Energy does not have responsibility, and we have outlined a number of actions for tackling the issue right across the economy. Just a few weeks ago, I hosted the first cross-Government meeting with colleagues from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade looking at how we can make regulations much tighter. We want to ensure that what the right hon. Gentleman wants applies across supply chains, not just in the energy space, but across the economy.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is giving an important speech on a really important topic—a speech that I think everyone across the House will agree with. Does he agree that part of the advantage of having a Government-run GB Energy is that we will have greater control over supply chains, and whether slave labour is being used?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want Great British Energy to be a sector leader in this area. It must meet all the standards that we expect from every other company, but we want it to go further and really demonstrate what is possible in this space. He raises a wider question about the importance of Great British Energy to delivering investment in the supply chain, so that we are delivering not just energy security through the clean power mission, but good, industrial jobs. That is what this Bill is all about.
Great British Energy will strive to be a leading example of best practice, not just in this space, but right across corporate due diligence, setting a benchmark for ethical standards in supply chain management. That involves ensuring that human rights considerations are integrated into corporate policies, procurement and suppliers’ conduct; we will draw on guidance from leading experts in the sector, such as the Helena Kennedy Centre at Sheffield Hallam University.
Lords amendment 2B will strengthen our framework. It demonstrates that both Great British Energy and the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour. I urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B and the position that the Government have reached on this critical issue.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
On 25 March, when we last debated amendments to the Bill, the Minister assured us that the mechanisms for preventing modern slavery in supply chains were adequate, and that the Procurement Act 2023 would provide adequate protection against technology that could have been manufactured using slave labour being deployed in the UK. He confirmed that in the coming weeks, he would convene cross-departmental meetings on that matter, and said that a broad strategy would be developed, through work with the solar taskforce and other Government Departments. Then we had the incredible sight of Labour MPs trooping through the Lobby, being whipped to vote against an amendment that would have prevented Great British Energy from investing in supply chains in which links to modern slavery were proven.
The offshoring of our emissions, our manufacturing base and our skilled jobs is understood and acknowledged to be the result of Labour’s energy policies, but on that day, we also saw the offshoring of Labour’s moral compass. We saw its narrow-minded, ideological obsession with achieving the unachievable: clean power by 2030, at any price and any cost, delivered through solar panels made by slave labour and with coal power in the People’s Republic of China.
Following all that, though, a screeching U-turn took place. Literally weeks after the Government whipped their MPs to vote against the modern slavery amendment the last time the Bill was debated, the Government conceded what we all knew to be the case—that the mechanisms cited by the Minister in this House were simply not up to the job. However, we sincerely welcome the acknowledgement that the UK must take a principled stand. The Procurement Act 2023 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were groundbreaking when they were introduced, but it is evident that more needs to be done today to prevent goods tainted by slavery from entering UK supply chains.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, heaven rejoiceth when a sinner repenteth. Does he share my hope—let us hope it is not naive—that, with this volte-face by Members on the Treasury Bench on this important issue, the cross-party consensus about the seriousness and perniciousness of modern slavery is restored, so that the House can face up to it, whenever and wherever it manifests itself?
Andrew Bowie
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: over the past decade and more, a cross-party consensus was reached in this House about the pernicious nature of modern slavery and the work we must do together to drive it out of supply chains that could be contributing to, or investing in, the United Kingdom. I think we all believe that we have to achieve that. Now that the Government have acknowledged that the mechanisms in the Bill were not up to the job, as we said at the time, I hope that we can revert to cross-party working on this incredibly important issue.
The transition to clean power must be just, as we have said before and as the Minister has said many times, but it is clear that there is no justice where there is slave labour in supply chains, so we are glad that the Government have listened not just to the official Opposition, but to Members from across both Houses. However, there is a serious question: what does this mean for the clean power 2030 mission? If the route to decarbonisation relies on importing technology from China made with slave labour, surely there should be a rethink of whether that mission is conducive to good policy.
We are pleased that the Minister has rowed back from the position that the Great British Energy Bill needed no extra provisions to exclude slave labour from supply chains, and have accepted an amendment that safeguards against slavery and human trafficking. While we welcome the Government’s change of heart, it would be remiss of me not to reiterate for the record that the official Opposition remain resolutely opposed to the creation of Great British Energy, which is not great, not British, and will not produce any energy. The Minister often cites my constituency in Aberdeenshire in these debates because of the location of GB Energy’s headquarters, but I say to him in all sincerity that the people and businesses of north-east Scotland do not want more government. They want government to get out of the way and let them get on with what they do best: extracting oil and gas from the North sea, keeping the lights on and homes warm in our country.
Instead of wasting time on this wasteful vanity project, the Government should lift the ban on licences and work faster on replacing the energy profits levy. That would really create jobs—indeed, it would save jobs—and drive investment in Aberdeen, unlike this Bill. High industrial energy costs are pushing energy-intensive industries such as ceramics and petrochemicals overseas. The impact of those costs is real for industrial communities, and we need to see a real plan that shows that the Government understand that and will act on it.
We are grateful to the Minister for heeding our calls—and, indeed, those of other right hon. and hon. Members—for provisions on slave labour to be included in the Bill, and for listening to the arguments made by Members from all Benches in both Houses. Today, we welcome a small victory, the acceptance of an amendment that seeks to prevent modern slavery in our energy supply chains. That is a positive change to the legislation—legislation that should not exist, but a positive change none the less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I rise in strong support of Lords amendment 2B and the consequential amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). The Liberal Democrats welcome this key step by the Government towards preventing goods linked to Chinese slave labour from being part of our renewables businesses’ supply chains. The decision, as we have heard, took time, and it is born of pressure from Members of all political parties and the sheer strength of feeling across both Houses. The Great British Energy Bill needed amending, and we thank the Government for reconsidering.
I want to express in particular my appreciation of Lord Alton of Liverpool’s tireless advocacy. Together with Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Bill team and colleagues from across both Houses—with important input from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—there has been a constructive and cross-party effort to confront an issue that is too often left in the shadows: the scourge of modern slavery in our energy supply chains. Groundbreaking investigative research has helped to shine the necessary light on what is at stake. We have heard irrefutable evidence from the BBC, The Guardian, and the world’s foremost expert on Uyghur forced labour, Professor Laura Murphy, that forced labour is being used to produce the solar-grade polysilicon that powers most of the global green transition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I reiterate and support what the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister have said. I understand that this Bill applies to all the regions, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. One concern raised with me by my colleagues in the Assembly is slave labour and what is happening to the Uyghur Muslims in particular. The view of the Assembly back home in Northern Ireland—I was a Member of it, although I am not now, of course—is that this legislation is important, so I welcome what the Government have put in place and thank the hon. Lady for outlining all the people who have contributed to making sure this change happens, including the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.
Pippa Heylings
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
We have to name the report “In Broad Daylight” from Sheffield Hallam University, which found that all solar industry-relevant polysilicon producers in the Uyghur region were either using state-sponsored labour transfers of Uyghurs or were sourcing from companies that were. As we speak, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subject to forced labour and political re-education camps. We cannot allow our green future to be built on the backs of enslaved people. My constituents in South Cambridgeshire do not expect their solar panels to be made by child labourers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or enslaved Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and I do not expect that Ministers do either—and they are right.
I understand that the Government will not be supporting the amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which is about definitions. Definitions really matter. The definition of slavery and how it is interpreted needs to be clear. This amendment would make it clear that the definition of slavery includes forced labour, state-imposed forced labour, exploitative child labour, abuses of workers’ rights and dangerous working conditions. It would be good to hear from the Minister about how the working groups that he is already working on will ensure that there are no loopholes, no grey areas and no convenient ignorance. The amendment would incorporate and put into practice the International Labour Organisation’s definition. How will that ILO standard be put into practice?
We have progress, but it is not the end; it is the beginning. Lord Alton said:
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights is close to completing an inquiry which is likely to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1238.]
This is the opportunity to look seriously at the model set by the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which introduces a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang are the product of forced labour, unless clear and convincing evidence can be shown to the contrary. Embedding a similar presumption into UK law would shift the burden of proof away from vulnerable victims and place it firmly on those who profit. It would close those loopholes that have allowed exploitation to flourish unchecked.
As my colleague Earl Russell in the other House rightly noted, we also need international co-ordination. I urge the Minister to update this House on efforts to work with like-minded partners in Europe and elsewhere to eliminate slavery from all our supply chains—those not just of GB Energy, but of all energy companies. Great British Energy, as the Minister said, has a chance to lead by example not just on innovation and independence, but on moral integrity.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Lords amendment 2B resulted from the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which includes cross-party membership from this House. I see some of its members in the Chamber now. Lord Alton and other members of the alliance, including me, who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government have worked tirelessly on the amendment, and others have done likewise on other amendments.
Let me say to the Minister that the problem we face at present is that we seem to be attacking this issue piecemeal. When the Conservatives, my own party, were in government, I had a big fight with them to secure a ban on slave-labour-made products in the national health service, and it sits there, in the health service, thanks to cross-party involvement. Now we have a provision in the Great British Energy Bill to block modern slavery, but the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we helped to enact when I was in the Government, needs to be massively updated in this area because it has no teeth. Unless it is beefed up, what we will have is piecemeal work from officials. If we are to embrace this idea—I know that the Government were tentative about it, but frankly all Governments do this, and the reality is that it has gone through—our objective should be, “How do we make this the case for every single product that is introduced, so that all of Government, including local government, are not allowed to involve themselves in modern-day slavery?” A huge amount of this applies to China, but some of it applies to other countries.
Let me also say to the Minister that this is the beginning, not the end. We must ensure that the lesson that is learned is that we must be paragons of virtue when it comes to modern-day slavery and that we will stand up for those who have no voice. If we go about buying products made through modern slavery, which undercuts the free market dramatically because no salaries are paid, we not only destroy the concept of the free market but cause people to be imprisoned by making our casual purchases.
There are solar arrays all over the country today that contain a modern slavery element—namely, the polysilicon. What are the Government going to do about that? What are they going to do about something that is already in existence in the UK? It is a big question. The Government have only just opened this door, and I think that if they want to stand by moral purpose, which is exactly what a Labour Government would claim to do, they must take this forward. They must say, “Do you know what? We are going to table amendments in all those areas that get rid of this and amend the Modern Slavery Act.” If they do that, they will be right, because this really is the issue of our time. The issue of the cost of products should not outweigh that of the cost of lives.
We have turned a blind eye for far too long, and we must now face up to our responsibilities. America has given us a lead, turning the balance of proof on its head by ensuring that companies make the correct declarations, because they are assumed to have slave labour elements in their products—and those products are not just arrays. Companies have to prove to the Government that their supply chains are clear, and those supply chains are tested using a New Zealand company called Oritain. I suggested its services to the last Government, who were not keen to take them up at that stage, but I offer them to this Government now, because they have to do those tests and force companies to tell the truth, rather than casually saying, “This is what we are told.”
If the Government do that, they will begin to stand up for this one. The Opposition, I am sure, stand ready to assist them in all this, as do all the other parties. This is a real moment, when we, as a Parliament, can say, “That is it. No more backsliding; no more pretence. We will fight modern slavery wherever it exists, because it is a tool of oppression and a tool to break the free market.”
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Well, this is a red-letter day: we are in the Chamber to discuss something positive that is happening with GB Energy. I commend the Minister and his colleagues for that, although it is consistent with the function of a significant U-turn in Government policy. I thank Members of both Houses for their work in bringing Lords amendment 2B to fruition.
The amendment would ensure that no material or equipment produced as a function of slave labour is used in GB Energy’s enterprises, but I heard the Minister talk about “expectation” and “striving”, which are much less unequivocal than “ensure”, so I would be very grateful if he could reassure the House that “ensure” means ensure. Consistent with comments from other hon. and right hon. Members, there is a very straightforward way to do that. It is maybe not legislatively or bureaucratically light, but this is an extremely important issue. If it does not attract a burden of administration to ensure that our collective consciences are clear, what will?
As an engineer, I know that many products that we purchase come with a certificate of conformity. In pursuance of ensuring that there is no slave labour in any enterprise of GB Energy, it would be very straightforward for the Government to mandate that a certificate of conformity must be produced for all equipment, which would explicitly guarantee that the supply chains are free of slave labour. That does not seem to be an especially demanding expectation.
I will make a final point. Can the Minister explain something to me? I am genuinely not seeing this with the clarity that I suspect he is—or maybe he is not. In what enterprises will GB Energy be involved as the decider, rather than the provider, in delivering generation, transmission or storage capacity on the ground and in a meaningful way? How will GB Energy scrutinise or mandate bills for materials to say whether they are provided from this provider or that provider? That is not my understanding of the nature of GB Energy. As has been explained in this House and elsewhere, GB Energy is a derisking device that will inject capital into the market and clear the blockages—it will not introduce purchase orders from this company or that company. I would be genuinely grateful if the Minister could clarify that.
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I will start with the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), which set the tone. He said that there is an important cross-party consensus on this issue, and I think that that has come through in all the contributions we have heard. Hopefully, that gives us a mandate to push further on this issue than any of our parties has done until this point. That is my genuine intent, and the hon. Gentleman’s point is very helpful.
I always welcome my exchanges with the shadow Minister, as he well knows. I thought for a moment that there was an opportunity at this very late stage for him to change his way and support investment in his own constituency through Great British Energy, but he has once again decided to use this opportunity to say to his constituents that he does not want investment and jobs. We will of course remind his constituents of that.
Michael Shanks
Cornwall is ever present in these debates. Nevertheless, however much the shadow Minister’s teeth were gritted, I do welcome his support for the approach we are taking today.
We are debating Lords amendment 2B, which, combined with the previous commitments that I have made from the Dispatch Box and that my noble Friend Lord Hunt has made in the other place, demonstrates that this Government are committed to using Great British Energy as a vehicle for taking this issue seriously. As came through in a number of the contributions, though, this is not solely the preserve of Great British Energy; it is much broader, both in the energy system and in the wider economy.
I have committed to doing some things already. I have committed to appointing a senior leader in Great British Energy who will have oversight of tackling forced labour in the supply chain; we have confirmed that Baroness O’Grady will take on that role. Many Members will know that she has significant experience in this space, and she will bring much effort to important deliberations at GB Energy. I have committed to cross-Government departmental meetings, which took place on 7 May as a starting point. I have committed to including an overarching expectation in the statement of strategic priorities, and that will be delivered within six months. We have demonstrated our unwavering commitment to tackling forced labour in supply chains, and we are resolute in our determination to go further.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The question, however, is this: at the end of it all, how will we know that the supply chains have been correctly declared? If they have not been, it will become a matter of avoidance. America checks, tests and sanctions companies that have lied about their supply chains, and that has forced wholesale change to its supply chain process. I ask the Government to learn from America and get companies such as Oritain to use forensic science to test the company supply chains about which they are suspicious.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to come to his substantive contribution shortly, but I will do so now. The first point he made in his speech is important, which is that there is a real danger with the piecemeal approach he mentioned. That is partly why I have resisted the idea that Great British Energy will solve all of these issues in isolation; it clearly is not going to do so. We think it has a really important role in leading the conversation and leading the effort, and certainly in demonstrating that by its own actions, but we have to look at these issues right across Government.
The meetings I have convened are a starting point in looking seriously at where the Modern Slavery Act falls short. We are committed to doing that, and it sounds as though there is consensus across the House about looking seriously at that. That is not only for my Department, and I want to be careful about overstepping, because to avoid the work being piecemeal, it needs to be done right across Government. However, the points the right hon. Gentleman makes specifically on tracking supply chains are very helpful, and I will take them away.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) made a point about the International Labour Organisation’s principles. Great British Energy will consider the 11 indicators of forced labour, including abuse of working and living conditions, as part of its efforts. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to get into a conversation about defining slavery. We may need to look at that, and I am not against doing so, but this Bill is about creating Great British Energy, and we need to be careful to keep these things separate.
We are already a signatory to a number of conventions, which highlights the Government’s broad support for tackling forced and compulsory labour, and we will continue to take that forward. The Home Office has produced a modern slavery action plan, which sets out the first steps in its departmental responsibilities for tackling modern slavery at its root. The plan, which will be published shortly, confirms that the Government are considering legislative vehicles for strengthening section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.
These are clearly important issues, and I do not for a second seek to say that the Lords amendment or Great British Energy itself will solve all of them, but I think this is an important step, and I welcome all the contributions made across the House.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I basically want to thank the Minister. This has been quite a robust and rough journey, but he has listened to comments from across the House, analysed the arguments we have made and listened to the other place. I think this is now going to be a very strong Act that will help enormously to shift our global supply chains and get the transparency I think everybody in this House wants, so I thank him.
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but more broadly, as I have said before, for her significant contribution in this space and for the way she has influenced me and others over the past few weeks on these important issues. I also thank others across the House, because it has been a real cross-party effort, and I think we are in the same place. We want to take this forward, and there is much more work to do. I want the message to be that, while this is progress, it is—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it very well—the beginning, and certainly not the end, of further work.
Without wanting to tempt fate, this is the last opportunity to speak about the Bill in this place, so I close by thanking everyone who has played a role in getting it to this stage. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Hunt in the other place. I thank all the Members from all parties in this place who contributed to the Bill Committee, and the witnesses who gave evidence. I also thank the parliamentary staff who play such an important role in shepherding Bills through this place and the House of Lords. I especially thank the fantastic team of officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who moved at incredible speed to develop the legislation, but always with good humour, which I have personally appreciated.
Great British Energy is at the heart of what the Government are setting out to achieve: delivering clean power, but delivering jobs and investment as we do it; and delivering energy security and climate leadership, owned by and for the people of this country, and headquartered in the energy capital of Europe, Aberdeen. With investments having already been made, including in community energy in Scotland today, which Members from Scotland might welcome, and investment in supply chains and much, much more, this is the big idea of our time. It will deliver on our energy objectives, but with the public owning a stake in their energy future. I am pleased that Parliament will—I hope, without tempting fate—back it today, so that it can receive Royal Assent and get on with doing what we need it to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to remind the House that the Deputy Speaker in the Chair today is also sanctioned by the Chinese Government for her bravery.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is noted, and no doubt on the record again, as it has been previously. Thank you. I will continue with the business.
Lords amendment 2B agreed to.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 February 2025 (Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Message
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 371 / Noes: 98 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 68 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 168 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 98 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 49B, the Lords disagreement with the Commons in Commons amendment 52 and Lords amendments 52B and 52C engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 28
DVS trust framework
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B.
That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.
That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.
That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B
Chris Bryant
Notwithstanding the views of the Chinese Government, it is a delight to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am only saddened that I have not been sanctioned, which feels a shame—nor by Russia, for that matter. There is still time.
I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Bill, which we last discussed in depth a week ago today. First, I would like to express how pleased I am that the other place has agreed to the Government’s amendments relating the national underground asset register and intimate image abuse. I pay tribute to all those Members of the House of Lords who took part in getting that part of the legislation to the place where it is now. I am glad we have been able to work with them. I will start by encouraging the House to agree to those amendments, before I move on to discuss the amendments relating to AI and intellectual property, scientific research, and sex and gender—in that order.
Lords amendments 55D, 55E and 56B, which were introduced to the Bill in the other place by the noble Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, place a duty on the face of the Bill that requires the Government to: review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence in the offences of creating and requesting intimate image deepfakes without consent, or reasonable belief in consent; publish the outcome of the review in a report; and lay that report before Parliament. The Government were pleased to support the amendments in the other place, as we share the desire to ensure that the criminal law, and these offences in particular, work as the Government intend.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I think we all appreciate the amendment, because we want to protect vulnerable women, children and anybody who is at risk of this sort of harm. Could we not look at doing something similar to the amendment, and the carve-out we have created with it, for our creative industries? If we can protect our vulnerable people, can we not also protect our creative industries from copyright infringement by having territorial exemptions similar to what we have with deepfakes?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is jumping the gun slightly—I will come on to those issues.
I want to praise Baroness Owen with regard to this part of the legislation. If it had not been for her, I do not think it would have ended up in the Bill. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between her and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we got the legislation in the right place. As I said in last week’s discussions, one of the issues was whether Baroness Owen’s original version of the second offence really worked in law; I think she agreed that our version, which we tabled in Committee, was better. We have been able to tidy up the question of the reasonable excuse. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how on earth there could be a legitimate or reasonable excuse for creating one of these images or asking for one to be created, and we went through those debates previously. I am glad that the Government have come to a settled position with Baroness Owen, and that is what I urge everybody to support here today.
The Government made a manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes, and the Bill delivers on that promise. For the first time, there will be punishment for perpetrators who create or ask others to create intimate deepfakes of adults without consent.
Secondly, I turn to the national underground asset register, which it does feel has been a long time coming. Of course, that is partly because the Bill is in its third iteration. Amendment 34 relates to the national underground asset register. An amendment was previously tabled in the House of Lords requiring the Secretary of State to provide guidance on cyber-security measures, which was rejected by this House. Last week, the Government tabled amendments 34B and 34C in lieu on this topic, which were drafted with the support of the security services. These amendments expand the scope from cyber-security only to general security measures, clarify the audience for the guidance and extend its reach to Northern Ireland, alongside England and Wales.
On all the amendments I have spoken to thus far, I thank our noble colleagues in the other place for their work and support to reach agreement in these areas. I urge colleagues here today to support these amendments, too; otherwise, we are never going to get the Bill through.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
On the subject of never getting the Bill through, I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Steve Barclay
One reason for getting the Bill through, one would hope, is to deliver on things like content credentials, which firms like Adobe have championed, to show who has produced a file, where the ownership sits and whether artificial intelligence has been used to edit it. Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill will deliver on that commitment on content credentials, and if not, why not?
Chris Bryant
Well, it is because the Bill was never intended to deal with copyright and artificial intelligence at all. The Government have not introduced any provision relating to AI or copyright, and I think that specific issue would probably be ruled out of scope if it were to be tabled.
There are very serious issues in relation to AI and copyright, which I am about to come on to, and I know the point the right hon. Gentleman is making on technical standards. [Interruption.] He keeps on talking at me—I am happy to give way to him again if he wants, but I cannot hear what he is saying.
Steve Barclay
My point is about AI being used to change photographs, and having the ability to see that through content credentials or the digital fingerprint. The point I am raising is that the Government themselves have still not adopted that, in terms of their official communications. Will the Bill deliver on that, and if not, why will the Government not adopt that best practice?
Chris Bryant
I am honestly failing to understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. The Bill is not and has never been intended to deal with the kind of issue he is referring to. As I say, I think that if somebody were to table amendments to that effect, they would be ruled out of order. The Bill does not deal with copyright or artificial intelligence; the only measures in the Bill on AI and copyright are those introduced in the House of Lords, which I am about to speak to.
Although I was not able to listen to the whole of the debate in the House of Lords the other day, the Secretary of State and I stood at the Bar of the House to listen carefully to considerable parts of the debate. I want to make two separate but interconnected points on AI and intellectual property in relation to the Bill. First, there is an urgent issue that must be addressed—namely, what is happening today, and, for that matter, one could argue what happened yesterday, last week, last year and two years ago. To be absolutely clear, I will reiterate that copyright law in the UK is unchanged. Works are protected unless one of the existing exceptions, which have existed for some time, such as exceptions for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holder has granted permission for their work to be used. That is the law. That is the law now, and it will be the law tomorrow if the House agrees with the Government and rejects the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron and supported in the House of Lords. As I have said previously, I am glad that several creative industries have been able to secure licensing agreements with AI companies, including publishers, music labels and others, under the existing law. I want to see more of that—more licensing and more remuneration of creative rights holders.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend talk about the importance of copyright and the fact that we have existing laws that we can use, but I wonder whether he is aware of the growing concern in industry about the risk of expansive US-style fair use principles creeping into UK practice and what we might do to secure our safeguards. We must not allow foreign interpretations of fair use to erode our copyright laws.
Chris Bryant
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the US system of fair use is different from the UK’s—ours goes back to 1709, with the first of our copyright Acts, and it has been very solid. When we introduced this Bill, I said that this country should be proud of the fact that a succession of different generations have ensured that rights holders can protect their copyright. Interestingly, one of Charles Dickens’ big battles was being able to protect his copyright not only in the UK but in the United States of America, where he felt he had fewer protections. It is for us to develop our own copyright law in our own country, and I say to my hon. Friend that the law as it is will not change one jot as a result of what we are intending to do in the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I probably ought to give way first to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
Yesterday the Minister appeared before our Select Committee and said, “The best kind of AI is the kind of AI that is built on premium content, and you can’t get premium content without paying for premium content.” Now, as well as being concerned about the overuse of the expression “premium content” in that sentence, I am also concerned about the fact that, as we speak, there are copyright works out there being scraped underhandedly by AI developers, some of whom are feigning licensing negotiations with the very rights holders whose works they are scraping. Surely now is the time to require developers to tell us what copyright works are being used to train their models and what their web-scraping bots are up to. Surely he agrees that Lords amendment 49 is a very good way to move this forward to see what works are being used to train AI models.
Chris Bryant
The first thing to say to the right hon. Lady is that I completely stand by everything I said to the Select Committee yesterday. I do believe that the best form of AI will be intelligent artificial intelligence. And just like any pipe, what comes out of it depends on what goes into it. If we have high-quality data going into AI, then it will produce high-quality data at the other end. I have spoken to quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK, including Taylor & Francis in particular—
Chris Bryant
Let me finish my point and then I will give way first to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who gets very cross if people queue-barge.
I am aware that there are quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK that are determined to secure licensing deals with AI companies, both in the UK and overseas. First, they want to ensure that those AI companies remunerate them and, secondly, they want to ensure that they have very high-quality, up-to-date information and data going into them, so that if somebody searches for immunotherapy, for instance, they will have the latest information on immunotherapy, not stuff that is five, six or seven years out of date, or that may have come from a dodgy source.
The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Lady said that this amendment would sort the problem today, but it would not. It would do nothing today, or indeed for a considerable number of months. Therefore, there is an issue about what we do today—what we as a Government do, and what we as the creative industries and everybody working together do, to ensure that we protect copyright under the existing law as it is today.
Pete Wishart
The Minister keeps saying that we have existing copyright laws that are there to protect the creative industries and our artists, but practically our whole creative heritage is being scraped. There are probably songs in the top 40 that have been totally designed by AI, and there will be books in the top 30 or 40 bestsellers that will be based on AI—probably fully AI. This is happening right now. Surely artists and creators should know when their works are being used. That is why Lords amendment 49B is so important for transparency.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are works out there that have been created with the use of AI. As I have said several times, I have never thought that the creative industries are in any sense luddite; I have always thought that they are at the forefront of innovation in so many areas—at the Select Committee yesterday I referred to Fra Angelico. This is true of every creative industry: they have to innovate in order to succeed. A video games company would say that it is using AI all the time, not necessarily to save money but to improve the product and be at the cutting edge of what they are doing. Even Björn from ABBA has said that he has been using AI because it enhances his work.
One area that is in our consultation but is yet to be addressed by anybody in any of the debates I have heard in this House or the other place is this: what we do about the copyright status of works that are solely or largely created by AI, because it is a moot point what we should do about it under existing law? My point is simply that we need to address all these issues in the round rather than piecemeal, and I will come on to that in more substance in a moment.
Jonathan Davies
The Minister is being very generous with his time. Central to what he is saying is transparency. Does he agree that enforceable transparency obligations would reduce legal uncertainty, deter infringement by increasing the legal risk to AI developers, and enable faster redress by allowing the courts to establish precedent where copyright is breached?
Chris Bryant
Yes. I do not think that people should breach copyright law. I have said that in several debates, and it is the settled view of the Government. We believe that people should not breach copyright law—they should not break the law. Some of the issues my hon. Friend raises have been or are being tested in the courts, and they will be contested more in the courts in future months.
A point I made right at the beginning, when we introduced the consultation, was that there is a fair use system in the United States of America, while we have our system in the UK, and then there is a slightly different system in the EU, which has largely relied on the Napoleonic code understanding of what an author is and what a work is. All those systems are slightly different and have been implemented in different countries in different ways, and they may lead to different conclusions in individual court cases.
That is why we have wanted to look at every single element of this issue, from transparency to technical data, access to high-quality data, issues of enforcement and personality rights. There are a whole series of issues, many of which are yet to be addressed in debates in either Chamber. That takes me back to my point that I do not think this is the Bill in which to do this piece of work, and I do not think that the amendment we are debating will secure what people hope from it.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the consultation. Could he confirm that the Government no longer consider an opt-out model to be their preferred approach to copyright and AI, and if so, what alternative approach is now being actively pursued or developed with the sector?
Chris Bryant
I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that—
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment, but I am still answering the intervention. I had two points to make, and I will now probably forget the second one.
As I was saying, it was always going to be a package of measures, and we always said that we would not introduce that package unless we were secure in the belief that we could deliver for the creative industries a technical solution that made it simpler for them to enforce their rights and seek remuneration and that would lead to more licensing. That is a whole package.
When we last debated this, I said two things: first, that we are open-minded about where we are in relation to the consultation, and secondly—perhaps just as importantly—that our amendment 16 would require us to undertake an economic impact assessment of all the different options included in the consultation. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. Somebody else wanted to ask another question.
Chris Bryant
I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and then I will probably go over to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The other week, an Observer article reported that a source close to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that
“proposals to introduce an opt-out system of copyright rules was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.”
That is a very welcome change of heart, potentially, but it does not mean anything unless Ministers are prepared to repeat it in Parliament. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is an accurate representation of the Government’s position?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I will repeat what I just said. First, in the consultation we introduced a package of measures and it hinged on the issue of whether we can deliver not only for AI companies but for the creative industries, to protect their rights more effectively than they presently can. Secondly, as I think I have now said twice at the Dispatch Box, we are open-minded about the responses to the consultation. We have had 11,500 responses to the consultation and we are making our way through all that. A lot of different issues have been addressed.
The issue of the economic impact assessment is a serious one. It is one thing to say that the AI sector in the UK, which is the third largest in the world, is worth x billion pounds to the UK economy, and that the creative industries are worth £124 billion—that is a number that a lot of people have used—to the economy. It is quite a different matter to draw up a proper economic impact assessment on the basis of the various different options.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is in a queue. It is quite a long queue, and it seems to be getting longer.
Chris Bryant
No, no. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is next.
Samantha Niblett
On the point of finding a solution in the round, if no credible technical solution is in sight, will the Minister confirm what non-technical legislative or regulatory measures the Government are considering to protect rights holders in the interim?
Chris Bryant
That is precisely why we need to do this in the round, rather than just piecemeal. I understand the attraction of what is on the amendment paper today, but I do not think it would deliver the answer that the people need now to the issues that the creative industries are facing now. In another debate we referred to the issue—
Chris Bryant
Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.
Chris Bryant
I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.
Torcuil Crichton
We can assure the Minister that he remains popular, as well as generous with his time. He mentioned the Government consultation. It has caused deep and sustained anxiety across the sector. When can we expect a substantive response to the consultation?
Chris Bryant
I wish I could give my hon. Friend a timeline. The main thing I want to say about the timeline, as somebody who I think all hon. Members know cares passionately not just about the anxiety that has been created in this sphere because of the consultation but about the anxiety for many creative people about their future careers, is that I get that anxiety—100%. That is the bigger point.
Frankly, I would like to stop doing the Data Bill and start going out and engaging with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to have as many sessions with creative industries and different parts of the sector and with the AI companies—in particular UK-based AI companies—to work out how we can get to proper solutions to all of this. However, until I get the Data Bill out of the way, I will struggle to do that.
On another point, I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley as a musician, because she is still a member of the Musicians’ Union. There is a really important part here for the different sectors within the creative industries. Word, image, music and sound will all probably need different technical solutions. That is the kind of nitty-gritty that we need to get into, which we can only really do when we consider the whole issue in the round, rather than just one specific aspect of it. Now, I think Margate calls.
Ms Billington
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time.
The Minister is talking about the possibility that the amendments put forward would not do anything today, but there is an urgency in the creative industries because the stuff that they create is being scraped now. Will he prioritise transparency by committing at the Dispatch Box to introducing enforceable obligations, if not through a statutory instrument then at least through a clear public commitment, so that transparency will be central to the Government’s approach to AI and copyright?
Chris Bryant
First, I completely get the urgency of this. In many ways, I wish we had been addressing this two or three years ago, because we are some way behind other countries in relation to this. Secondly, we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward. I have said that from the very beginning. Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to the process of AI being high- quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. All these things have to be addressed in the round and together, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is worth nothing.
The AI Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North—is chuntering in my left ear, which is helpful because she makes the point that this was the very first thing we discussed when came into office. With both of us in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discussed how we could get to a resolute piece of legislation that enabled greater licensing, greater deployment of artificial intelligence in the UK, in particular UK companies, and greater transparency. So I completely agree on that—
Chris Bryant
I will give way, but I have the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) waiting.
Ms Billington
Again, my hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. Will he therefore consider interim measures or guidance that would deliver similar outcomes while legislative options are being explored? That is what the creative industries are looking for.
Chris Bryant
I do not know what interim measures would look like. All three of us on the team, including the Secretary of State, have often said that we are open- minded about anybody coming through the door with a good solution. We are in the business of good ideas, and if anybody has any good ideas, we are happy to look at them, but I honestly cannot make the guarantee that my hon. Friend asks for because I do not know what interim measures that were not legislative would look like. It is not our intention—I would urge people to abide by this—to legislate piecemeal in this Bill, which is not about artificial intelligence and copyright.
Chris Bryant
Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he has been waiting so long.
Mike Martin
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous, although I might suggest that he works on his queuing system a little bit.
I understand that the timetable issue is a difficult one, and most things seem to be arriving in the spring with this Government, but could we talk about the format? Are we going to have the consultation, then a White Paper and then a Bill? Is that what it is going to look like? Will that perhaps be in the next King’s Speech?
Chris Bryant
If I was unable to suggest what interim measures would look like, I am not sure I will be able to please the hon. Gentleman by suggesting what will be in the next King’s Speech. I do not even know when the next King’s Speech will be. As the Minister for the creative industries and for data, I want, along with my colleagues in Government, to be able to get on with the business of trying to get together the working parties I have referred to. I want to get people from the AI companies and the creative industries sitting around the same table to work out what a proportionate and effective system of transparency would look like and what the technical solutions might be. Other countries have struggled with drawing this up; the EU is struggling with it at the moment.
That is the next stage. At the same time, we are considering what our response to the consultation should be. We have heard what many people in this House and in the House of Lords have said on this issue, and of course we will bear all that in mind. We are keeping an open mind in relation to that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for when we will publish that consultation, but we are working on it as fast as we possibly can.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend told our Select Committee yesterday that it is not for us to give away the labour of other people to third parties for free. Given that the Government have now said they are open-minded, and if open-minded means there is no technical solution, is the Minister open-minded to the idea of legislative solutions to protect copyright and enhance it for all our great creatives? It is not just ABBA’s Björn; it is people in Rochdale and low-paid creatives across the whole north-west and country.
Chris Bryant
One of the special and unique aspects of the creative industries as a sector, which has grown faster than the rest of the UK economy and for whom we hope to lay out our plan in the next few weeks in the creative industries industrial strategy, is that they exist in nearly every part of our land. Often, the jobs are not well remunerated, and we want to change that. That is a key part of what we seek to do. We also want to ensure that more people can come into the creative industries and realise their ambitions in those areas, and they will not be able to do that if they are not remunerated. That is why I have made the point from the beginning that we want to get to a technical solution, which is not far distant. It is a possibility—I would not deride it. It does not exist at the moment, but there are those who want to work on it. Frankly, somebody might earn a decent penny if they were to come up with a solution so that all rights holders would be able easily, simply and without great expense to protect their rights across all AI platforms deployed in the UK.
Chris Bryant
Oh my Lord—I am almost as keen to get on to the next bit of my speech as I am to get the data Bill through to Royal Assent, but I probably ought to give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will come back to my hon. Friend.
Dame Karen Bradley
I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I get the sense that he is perhaps needing to go long, and that might be why he is taking so many interventions—I am happy to assist him in that process. I want to give him an opportunity. I know him well enough and know how much he values this place, but I have been slightly concerned by his comments throughout that he is keen to get on with it. Would he like to put on the record that he is first and foremost a parliamentarian and that being in this place is the bit of the job that he values most?
Chris Bryant
Well, the right hon. Lady was at my 60th birthday—I know it is difficult to believe.
Chris Bryant
“A long time ago!” says the rather ungenerous Member sitting at the back.
Honestly, I have not been asked to go long. I am simply, because I do believe in parliamentary scrutiny, trying to answer all the questions and engage in a proper debate. I know that colleagues want to press me on a series of issues. There are some issues coming up that they might want to press me on that are completely different from this, and I am happy to be pressed, including by the right hon. Lady, as many times as she wants. But I do not think there was a question in her point. She thought she was trying to help me go long, but I am trying to go slightly shorter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.
Chris Bryant
I know it is out of order to say that an hon. Member is not telling the truth, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were there! [Laughter.] And I accept your apology.
Mr Frith
The hon. Gentleman has been generous with his time today and in the process to date, and I thank him for that. I understand the Government have long maintained that this Bill is not the right place for these amendments. Given the Government’s anticipated removal of the Lords amendments and the use of financial privilege, what definitive action will the Minister take to address the ongoing serious concerns of our world-leading creative industries, particularly on copyright and transparency? What does he advise those of us seeking stronger commitments to do next? Would he point to any specific timeline, mechanism or legislative tool that will be used to offer the certainty that the sector is crying out for?
Chris Bryant
Notwithstanding the hilarity, this is obviously a very important matter to a large number of people. For many people in the creative industry, it feels like a kind of apocalyptic moment—they think that their careers are disappearing in front of their faces. I fully recognise that.
The moment that the Bill is out of the way, I and the two Departments I sit in—the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology—would like to get people back in to work on two working parties. One would work on transparency and precisely what it looks like in granular detail—very high-level stuff does not really meet the moment. The second would work on technical standards and solutions that might deliver greater access to data for the AI companies, and on the ability for the creative industries to protect their works.
I do have some sympathy with Lords amendment 49B. There is one element that I would like to explore, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). It is one thing for Getty Images, for example, to go to court and protect its rights under the existing law, because it has deep pockets and can engage lawyers. It is quite a different matter for individual artists, who may want to promote their work by putting it on the internet and do not want it to disappear from the internet, but also do not want it to be scraped and turned into another version of their work created by AI.
Chris Bryant
I will in a second. Then I probably ought to move on to the next subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
Oh dear.
I take very seriously the point that this is not just about people with deep pockets; it is also about individual artists. We want to ensure that they are protected. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Simon Hoare
There is little doubt that the Minister takes the issue seriously—I think the House accepts that—but does he acknowledge that what he has said in answer to questions from the Opposition and from his hon. Friends will offer the sector rather cold comfort? He recognises that this is an issue, as the Government do, and argues that the Bill is not the place to resolve it, but he does not give strong leadership by setting out a clear timetable and a clear direction of travel or sharing with the House his thinking on how the issue could be solved. Many people are facing this problem today, and he is asking them to take comfort from his intention to do something at an unspecified time, with the exception of convening two working parties. It is not quite enough to meet the magnitude of the concern from that vibrant and growing sector, which, as he rightly says, is represented in all constituencies across the country.
Chris Bryant
Of course, I would like to be able to move faster, but as the hon. Gentleman said to me last week in Committee and in various different places, this is not an easy knot to untie. It will require a great deal of goodwill from a large number of people to secure a settled outcome that works for everybody. I still believe that there could be a win-win situation, but that will happen only if we can gather everybody around the same table in order to deliver it. I am perfectly happy to provide leadership, and to be punched in the nose for providing that leadership if people think that I have got it wrong, but I do not think that is the problem at this particular moment.
Let me give the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) one reason why I think Lords amendment 49B does not really work. Yes, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures—although it is difficult to work out precisely how they would be proportionate and effective and work equally for big and small companies—but there is no point in having transparency measures unless we have an enforcement measure. An element of the proposed new clause refers to enforcement, but it basically asks the Secretary of State to draw up that enforcement. One would not expect to be able to do that in any other area without a full Bill devoted solely to that purpose. I wish that I could move faster, but I do not want to move faster than is required to secure an outcome.
Chris Bryant
I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them.
Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the good point that in the UK, many of the creative industries—roughly 40%—are tech. They are fast-growing, and part of what we want to incentivise. She makes the good point that we need to talk to lots of different kinds of artificial intelligence companies, just as we need to talk to lots of different kinds of creative industries. All those points are well made, and what she refers to is precisely the work that I and the team will want to take forward as soon as we can.
Mr Frith
This will be my last intervention for now. Will the Minister make it his policy to include representatives of the creative industries on the technical committees that are working on AI and copyright reform? We arrived at this point because there is a sense that one Department speaks to some people, and another Department speaks to others, whereas there are implications for both sectors. We should have both sectors in the room, talking about each other with the Minister and his Department.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I can give that guarantee. Interestingly, when we started this process after the general election, the first consultation meetings that the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), and I had were with the creative industries in one room and the AI companies in another. Perhaps it would have been better to mix them up in the way my hon. Friend has suggested, and that is precisely the job of work that I want to get on with.
We are determined that wherever we can, we will take creative industries with us, and we will be transparent about the work that we do. I want to lay to rest the idea that there are two Departments at war with one another. That simply is not the case. The two Departments are trying to work together to achieve good outcomes for everybody.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The Minister is being unbelievably generous in taking interventions, but before he moves on, I wanted to say that it is really important to have those involved in AI and in the creative industries in the same room at the same time. He must not forget that the reason the creative industries are in such a state of panic and despair about this is because a hare was set running a few months ago by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, when it published an AI strategy that said that the copyright opt-out was a way to grow the AI industry. The Government then published their consultation, in which they indicated that the opt-out was their preferred mechanism, despite the fact that the document also mentioned prioritising transparency. I understand that, but the Minister must understand that panic has set in. Words matter; what we say matters. He needs to do everything that he can to bring this issue to a close.
Chris Bryant
As the hon. Lady knows, I am sympathetic to the direction of travel that she is trying to take me in. Some people will think that I am splitting hairs, and that is not my intention, but I have been keen to avoid the term “opt-out”. As I said, we have brought forward a package of measures. They were reliant on our being able to deliver greater control, through technical measures, for the creative industries and others who had rights to protect. That is why we referred to “rights reservation”, rather than “opt-out”. I take her point, and I am sure that we will be debating it for some considerable time. She is a Select Committee Chair, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). I should have said earlier that when I was Chair of the Committee of Privileges, we produced a report, which has yet to be implemented or even discussed in the House, about how we could ensure that witnesses appeared before Parliament when Select Committee Chairs wanted them to.
If it is all right with the rest of the House, I will move on to further subjects. The issues around scientific research—I can never work out where the emphasis lies when I say the word “research”—are embodied in Lords amendment 43B. Some people have suggested that the Bill will somehow create a wild west for research, but that is simply not true. The Bill does not change the threshold for what constitutes scientific research; we are sticking with what has been and is a fair, clear and proportionate measure, using the “reasonableness test” that is common in other legislation and well known by the courts.
As Lord Vallance said in the House of Lords earlier this week, this amendment would go against the good work done by the previous Government on avoiding unnecessary red tape for researchers. We have a world-class research sector in the UK. We want to empower it, not tie it up in red tape. We believe that documents such as the Frascati manual, which are useful and interesting in other settings, are not designed to contain legally binding requirements, so the amendment is misplaced.
If the amendment were carried forward, researchers would need to be able to demonstrate their work’s creativity to a legal standard. If someone’s work is aimed at testing or reproducing another researcher’s results, is it truly creative? That is a legitimate question, but it takes on a whole new meaning, and brings a whole new layer of bureaucracy, when enforced to a new legal standard, as the Bill insists, backed up by the potential for huge regulatory fines.
Similar issues arise in relation to requirements for research to be “systematic” and “ethical”. Those words are not necessarily well known in the courts when it comes to this legislation. As Lord Winston argued powerfully on Monday, if the amendment had been law 50 years ago, we may never have had in vitro fertilisation and the benefits spinning off from that, including valuable cancer research. Those are the issues caused by putting such a test in a legally binding setting that it was never designed for.
Chi Onwurah
On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation?
Chris Bryant
Lord Winston’s point is that by introducing a requirement that research be systematic, ethical and creative, we are creating a whole new idea of what constitutes research. When he wanted to start his IVF work, it was generally thought that it would be unethical to explore that territory. Today, we would consider that view to be misplaced. We believe that the task of deciding what counts as scientific research is best approached by drawing on guidance and the opinion of experts. That is what the reasonableness test allows. It is a concept that is well understood by the courts. While I sympathise with the intention, expressed in the other place, of guarding against misuse, and while I understand the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and I have discussed on several occasions, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already contains sufficient and, I would argue, considerable safeguards.
A controller who wishes to change the purpose of data processing to scientific research must first ensure that they comply with clause 71’s rules on purpose limitation. Scientific research is not listed as grounds for exemption where data was collected on the basis of consent. Secondly, the controller would have to ensure that they passed a “reasonableness” test; thirdly, they would have to ensure that they had lawful basis; fourthly, they would have to ensure that they met the requirements of the safeguards in clause 86; and fifthly, they would have to ensure that the new processing was fair and complied with the wider data protection principles in UK GDPR. That is a very substantial set of safeguards. The Government cannot see how the Lords amendment would add value, on top of all those requirements against misuse, but it would have an effect on genuine researchers, as I have set out, burdening them with red tape and uncertainty and potentially excluding important research.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.
This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.
To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.
I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was a substantial opening speech.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on Monday, Mr Speaker took to task those on the Treasury Bench for making a very important announcement about major policy changes on immigration to the media before it was made to this House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) had an urgent question on that issue just this afternoon, and at the heart of the matter is the ministerial code. It has been brought to my attention that this afternoon, the Ministry of Justice has announced some fairly major changes: a limit to the length of time for which some offenders can be returned to prison, under plans to ease prison overcrowding, and a major shake-up of offenders. It seems that the Government are persistent offenders themselves on this matter. It strikes me as arrogantly cavalier that, given the very strong strictures from the Chair and on a day on which a UQ has been granted, another offence has been added to the charge sheet.
This is something that affects, and should concern, all Members of this House who do not sit on the Front Bench. Parliament hears important announcements as they affect our constituents, and public safety and the removal of people from our streets through the prison system and so on are of concern to all our constituents, irrespective of where we represent. I also understand that no indication has been given of a written ministerial statement on this important issue. As such, I rise to reinforce the point that has been made over the past several days on this significant breach of the ministerial code, and to inquire of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether—even at this late-ish stage on a sitting day—the Chair has had any indication at all of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, so that a relevant Minister can be questioned on what this policy means for our constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He is entirely correct to say that the House took an urgent question earlier today on the provisions of the ministerial code. Those provisions make clear that when the House of Commons is sitting, major Government announcements should be made to the House first. That point has been made repeatedly from the Chair, including on multiple recent occasions. Ministers are accountable to this House, and should make every effort to inform this House of policy developments via statements wherever it is possible to do so. While I have been in the Chair, I have had no warning that a statement is due today. The Government and, no doubt, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the point of order and my response, and I trust they will act accordingly and with some urgency.
I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Over the course of debating the Bill, it has become customary to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, particularly Baroness Owen for her work on deepfakes and others who have campaigned boldly in that area.
I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 49B. We have been clear that supporting the creative and AI sectors is not a zero-sum game; we need to support both sectors. Through their ham-fisted consultation on copyright and AI, the Government have raised great concern throughout the creative sector, and the resulting attempts to amend this Bill have been in response to the mess they have created. In Committee and on Report, we set out a series of amendments that focused on the outcome—not the process—for a solution in this area. Those amendments focused on ensuring that the position in law of copyright in this area was clear, on the need for proportionate and effective transparency, on removing barriers to start-ups, and on facilitating technological solutions via digital watermarking.
In one of the many interventions on the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) mentioned the importance of implementing digital watermarking. He referred to it as a response to deepfakes, but it also has relevance to technical solutions, and it strikes me as quite odd that the Minister went on to cover broadly the same topics in his opening remarks, despite pointing out to my right hon. Friend that those topics were not relevant to the ongoing debate. That indicates how confused the treatment of this area in the Bill has become, and the need for clarity.
I pay tribute to Viscount Camrose, Lord Parkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), Baroness Kidron, and others in this House and in the other place, for their work on amendments to reach a resolution in this area. We had sympathy with earlier versions of those amendments, but also concerns about their workability and prescriptiveness. We have worked with Baroness Kidron to get to a position that we can now support; we believe that solutions need to incorporate the principles of transparency and proportionality. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is more reasonable than doing nothing.
I find it astounding that the main criticism that the Minister has made of Lords amendment 49B is that it has a run-in period prior to implementation and that people are calling for things to happen now. That is an odd way of approaching legislating. As the Opposition, we are working with other parties, among others, to try to find a solution to get the Minister out of a hole. I hope that Members across the House support the amendment.
Moving on to digital verification services, I welcome the Lords’ disagreement with amendments 32 and 52, and support their amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C on sex data accuracy, which received the support of Members in the other place. As my noble Friend Viscount Camrose said in his speech, it was necessary to re-table amended versions of the clauses on data accuracy previously secured in the other place because our new clause 21 was not in scope for debate in the Lords. The Lords amendments are technical and complex, so if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to new clause 21 to explain for the benefit of Members how things have evolved over time.
Our new clause 21 would have compelled public authorities to correct the datasets they hold in relation to sex and to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex in accordance with the legal definition set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment: biological sex. It would also have allowed public authorities to collect data on acquired sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate where that is relevant and lawful. It would have imposed no new obligations on the correction of data held by public authorities—the obligation already exists under article 5(1)(d) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation—but would simply have put in place a timescale for correcting data on sex. We know from the findings of the Sullivan review that that correction is much needed and long overdue.
To address a misconception, new clause 21 was silent on how sex is recorded in physical and digital forms of identity for those holding a gender recognition certificate. That is a sensitive issue for the 8,500 holders of GRCs in the UK, and we hope that much-needed clarity in this area will be given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its guidance due to be laid before Parliament next month. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make rules as to how that guidance is implemented in digital verification services. However, that issue, while important, does not affect the clear obligation that already exists in law to record data on sex accurately.
Lords amendments 32C and 32B, and disagreement with amendment 32, would compel the Secretary of State to examine whether the public authorities that will act as data sources for the digital verification services system ascertain sex data reliably in accordance with biological sex and, where lawful and relevant, with sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That would prevent inaccurate sex data from being entrenched and proliferated in the digital verification services system. Lords amendments 52B and 52C, and disagreement with amendment 52, would give the Secretary of State the power to define in a data dictionary sex data as biological sex and, where relevant, sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That could then be applied across the digital verification services system, the register of births and deaths, and other circumstances where public authorities record personal data. The amendments are critical for correcting our compromised datasets on sex and would ensure that poor-quality and inaccurate data does not undermine digital verification services.
To be clear, if our amendments do not make it into the Bill, self-ID will be brought forward through the back door, risking the protections that single-sex spaces offer to everyone. Self-ID is not and never has been the position in UK law. I do not understand why the Government are resisting these measures. Digital verification systems need to be trustworthy to deliver the benefits intended by the Bill. If they are not trustworthy, the system will fail. I therefore commend these vital and much-needed amendments to the House.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Let me join others in expressing my gratitude for the work of many Members, especially in the other place—in particular, Baroness Owen and Baroness Kidron—but also across this House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, including much constructive discussion on many elements of the Bill with the Minister. Today, though, I will refer specifically to Lords amendment 49B.
I am lucky enough to represent a part of Hertfordshire that is woven into British creativity, from Graham Greene of Berkhamsted, whose masterpiece “Brighton Rock” shaped our cultural consciousness, to Eric Morecambe of Harpenden, whose partnership in Morecambe and Wise brought joy to millions, while the music of the Devines from Berkhamsted gets us up and dancing, and local artists such as Mary Casserley and Andrew Keenleyside paint our daily lives in ways that bring perspective, colour and joy in a way that only artists can achieve. Our landscapes in Ashridge and Aldbury have inspired film-makers from Disney to the producers of the Harry Potter films, and our pubs have been featured in films including “Bridget Jones”.
Today, this creative legacy faces an unprecedented threat. The current situation is more than just alarming; it is threatening the essence of our national identity and our creative economy. We hear concerns about resources for protecting our creative sector, but those arguments miss a crucial point: our creative industries, combined, contribute £126 billion to our economy, employ 2.4 million people, and are growing significantly faster than the wider economy. The question is not whether we can afford to protect these industries, but whether we can afford not to. When we invest in enforcing copyright protections, we are also investing in safeguarding one of Britain’s greatest economic assets and our competitive advantage on the world stage.
The transparency provisions in Lords amendment 49B are essential and proportionate. They apply proportionately to businesses of different sizes, while ensuring that our creative powerhouse can continue to thrive and, indeed, work hand in hand with technology. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, not exploitation. Let me make it clear that this is not about resisting technology, but about recognising value and safeguarding innovation—and that brings me back home to Berkhamsted.
In the heart of my constituency sits the British Film Institute National Archive, one of the largest and more significant film collections in the world, comprising over 275,000 titles and 20,000 silent films dating back to 1894. It is a living memory of our national story, told on screen. Would we allow anyone to walk into the BFI and take whatever they liked? Would we let them scan, copy and republish those works without permission or compensation? Of course not. So I ask the Minister, why would we allow the same thing to happen in the digital world?
This is a defining moment. We can build an AI-powered future that respects and rewards creativity, or we can allow short-term interests to strip-mine the work of generations. The question before us today is simple: will we stand for a future when technology and creativity flourish together, or will we allow the foundations of our cultural life and economic prosperity to be hollowed out for short-term gain? I urge the Government to stand up for our creators, stand up for transparency, and stand up for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone.
On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard. The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so.
Chris Bryant
I am being very badly behaved. I did not want to take up more time, but I will respond at the end. I think my hon. Friend will be happy.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his inadvertent intervention, and I look forward to my future happiness. Given his reassurances, I think the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can work with the Government to ensure that the Bill enables scientific research through the use of the fantastic datasets that the UK is proud to have, without exposing the public to the reuse of their data for the purposes of training AI models or for other commercial purposes that are not within the remit of scientific research. I will be pleased to accept the Minister’s reassurances, and on that basis I do not wish to engage in further ping-pong between the Houses.
Pete Wishart
In reference to the earlier exchange, it seems that if you remember the Minister’s 60th birthday, you were not really there—but I really was not there. [Interruption.] Did I? I knew there must have been some very good reason. Why I was not there is now in Hansard.
There is profound disappointment within the creative sector today. Everyone in the sector really believed and hoped that the Minister would appear today with something in his back pocket that he would be able to bring out to give reassurance to the many artists and creators right across the country who are extremely anxious and concerned about the direction of the debate and conversations about the use of their work. They are really concerned that some of their precious work, into which they have put so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears, will be scraped up, trawled through by a bot and ingested by one of the large American tech companies, and then reappear as some minor mirror of itself.
No one has been satisfied with what has been said today, and the Minister has one last chance. I really hope that he can give something to the creative industries, or at least give them some sort of hope as we go forward into the next few months and years, because they are going into the next few months and years unprotected. They will have nothing that they can rely on, other than what is in the amendments, and I know for a fact that the Minister will ensure that they are voted down.
Today has been a curious day, too, because financial privilege has been invoked for a particular amendment. In my almost quarter of a century in this House, I have never seen that before. I think I know why it has been done: it is to ensure that the House of Lords does not get another opportunity to bring this measure back. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is shaking his head, that the Lords are already designing it. After it goes back to the House of Lords, it will come back once again. I am sure it does not invoke any financial privilege, but it is ultimately disappointing that the Lords will not be able to present the same motion again, which was their intention. That amendment has received overwhelming support from everybody across the creative sector, and I had really hoped that the Government would support it today.
The only reason we are here is the efforts of the Members of the House of Lords. I usually do not pay them much of a tribute or respect what they do, but they have played a blinder. In particular, Beeban Kidron—Baroness Kidron—has stuck to this agenda to ensure that these Lords amendments have been reinserted into the Bill. They have had to do it because the Government have not done so. The Government have done nothing to ensure that our creative sector is protected.
The Government say that there should be more time for this, but we do not have time. We have to act now to protect the livelihoods of 2.4 million creators in the UK against exploitation by some of the richest companies in the world. As I have said countless times throughout this Bill’s passage, if we continue at this rate there will soon be nothing left to protect. The thing is that the Government should have acted earlier. They should have taken steps to protect creators’ rights as a matter of urgency. Instead, it has been left to others to scramble to find a way to ensure that we had these vital Lords amendments to a Bill that, as the Minister has said on several occasions, was not designed for them.
The Government’s motions will in effect set a timeline of several years before any resolution is reached on copyright transparency. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to what the Minister had to say about transparency, but I still do not understand why this cannot be done immediately. All the Government have to do is tell inventors, creators and copyright holders that their work is going to be used or ingested by one of the web crawlers that are in operation. That is all they would have to do, and it could be done very easily. There is no great technical problem in introducing transparency as a priority, and it could possibly happen within a few weeks.
Alison Hume
The hon. Member is making some important points. As Lord Brennan said recently, this Bill is an opportunity to regulate AI:
“This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1932.]
This bus is leaving now, along with the opportunity to protect our creative rights. Does the hon. Member agree with me and share my concern that the Government are going to miss the bus?
Pete Wishart
I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.
Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.
Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.
It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.
If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.
Chris Bryant
I was anticipating more contributions from other Members, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow on from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I will not speak at great length, Members will be delighted to hear.
First, I want to refer to the matter of financial privilege, because the hon. Member referred to it just now. It is not the Government who decide whether financial privilege is engaged. It is a simple matter decided on advice from the Clerks to the Chair, which is determined from two motions, from 1671 and 1678. Where there is any financial implication of a Bill, or in this case an amendment that comes from the House of Lords, it is a simple matter as to whether or not the financial privilege of the House of Commons is engaged. Anything that obviously requires a system of enforcement is likely to require expenditure. That is why we would not choose to waive our financial privilege in relation to these amendments today.
Pete Wishart
A money resolution to the Bill was passed with Second Reading. I looked at it and there is nothing that says there is any financial limit on any measures included in the Bill, so I am a bit confused about why financial privilege has to be invoked on that basis.
Chris Bryant
It is not the Government who invoke financial privilege. It is the House that does it, via the Speaker’s Chair. I am afraid that that is a debate we will have to have at another point. Much as I love debating motions from 1671 and 1678, I think we might move forward.
The only point I will make to the hon. Gentleman about his contribution on the creative industries—he knows that on many of these issues we completely and utterly agree—is that if there were a simple way of being able to enforce those rights today, I would seize it. If he wants to write to me with a suggestion on what that actually looks like and what we would do today to be able to enforce the rights under the existing law today, then of course I would be happy to look at it.
I also said that I would respond to the point from the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). The Bill creates no new permission to reuse data for scientific research. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. I hope that that meets some of her understandable concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that it is completely not in order, but I am going to say it anyway and end on this point. We have discussed some very serious points, but I do just wish that Remember Monday will win the Eurovision song contest on Saturday evening, with their song, “What the Hell Just Happened?” I wish Lauren, Holly-Anne and Charlotte all the best of British.
Question put.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Clause 67
Meaning of research and statistical purposes
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. —(Chris Bryant.)
Sanctions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 504), dated 22 April 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.
This instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It was laid before Parliament on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in the regulations, which subject to the affirmative procedure, entered into force on 24 April. Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international norms and rules, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming into power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners, and that includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support for Russia.
Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. It is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships, almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet. The Government’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid and our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the Minister on bringing the measure forward. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not be encouraged by what the Minister and Government are doing in bringing in the sanctions. The one thing that always concerns everybody—the Minister knows this—is the £22.7 billion of frozen Russian assets. We all wish to know whether the Government can pursue those assets with a vengeance and an evangelical zest. That would be a better zest than any other. If we put a squeeze on the frozen Russian assets, we can use them for the benefit of Ukraine, and strengthen everyone who supports Ukraine.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his steadfast support for Ukraine, and for raising this important issue. As I said, we have already ensured that important resources get to Ukraine. Thanks to the speedy passage of measures through this House, and support from all parts of the House, we made sure that happened, and it is making a tangible difference. Two thirds of the ERA loan scheme funding that I mentioned has been disbursed and is immediately supporting Ukraine in obtaining vital military equipment. He rightly asks about frozen Russian sovereign assets more widely. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are working apace with international partners to look at all lawful means of ensuring that Russia pays for the horrific damage and destruction that it has done in Ukraine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will of course come back to the House in due course to update Members.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister referred to the attempts to cripple the ghost ships and fleet. Does that have any effect on the shipments of oil to third parties, such as India, that refine the oil and then sell it on to countries that, like us, are trying to sanction Russia directly?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We take up all possible avenues of limiting Putin’s war machine and the energy revenues that go towards it. We keep all options under consideration, and we look at them carefully. As he knows, I will not comment on any future actions or designations for obvious reasons, but I can tell him that this action on the shadow fleet has had a significant real-time impact on Putin’s ability to wage war. I have given this figure on a number of occasions, but our sanctions programme overall has denied Russia $450 billion, which would have been enough to keep this war going for many more years. The action has had a tangible impact. Action taken under the last Government, and the action taken by this Government, which has been accelerated, is having a real impact on Putin’s war machine. Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for Ukraine, and his support for these measures.
We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to that, which is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions. We have now sanctioned more than 2,400 entities and individuals under the Russia regime. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade: Russian imports to the UK have fallen by more than 98% since the invasion, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain the relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations. We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine in order to create the space for talks on a just and lasting peace, and we commend President Zelensky for making his own commitment to peace by expressing his openness to engaging in direct talks with Putin. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The House can be assured that these conversations form part of all our engagement with partners and allies across the world; indeed, I had such conversations today.
Now is the time for Putin to come to the table, and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or else face the consequences. The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia, so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. As I have said, we will continue to explore all measures through which we can ratchet up economic pressure. The statutory instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of more than 150 new trade sanctions, including new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and will expand our prohibitions, with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth and ability to fuel its war machine.
Let me deal with each of the measures in the instrument. First, it introduces new export prohibitions that apply to a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means of procuring products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying them to a broader set of technologies relating to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors, and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise—whether in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how—from Putin’s critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design, and oil and gas exploration and production. As has been said, Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy, so the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive and therefore less able to fuel this illegal and barbarous war against Ukraine. Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. This targets future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes. Finally, the instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable the office of trade sanctions implementation in the Department for Business and Trade to enforce certain trade sanctions offences, and to refer serious offences to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for criminal enforcement consideration.
This Government remain committed to European security, and to our steadfast support for Ukraine. We are committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values that continue to be attacked so brutally by Russia. Sanctions, including this important package, are a key part of our efforts, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We on the Opposition Benches support this statutory instrument and all measures that bear down on Putin’s regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine. We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, and on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten the import and export regimes. Of course, all of those are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative Government. Working with allies, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, in order to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups.
All of us should be in no doubt that the economic pressure that we and our allies have been exerting means that Russia cannot afford to sustain the cost of this illegal invasion. Indeed, Russian interest rates are at levels not seen for decades, and welfare payments are being cut. The international community’s sanctions have deprived Putin of $400 billion since February 2022—money that Russia could otherwise have spent on the war in Ukraine.
On that note, I want to push the Government on four points, because we must strive ceaselessly to constrain Putin’s war machine and never see our actions as an end state. First, we recognise that some measures in today’s SI will deal with specific issues relating to third countries, but can the Minister confirm whether his Department is currently looking into wider secondary sanctions? If so, what is the scope? What kind of diplomatic engagement is he having with countries whose economies are being used to circumnavigate the international sanctions response, and what measures is he considering on the big-ticket issues that are well understood in this House?
Secondly, when is the Minister’s internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent? Can he update us on the Foreign Secretary’s engagement with the trustees, the Government of Portugal and the European Commission on this issue? We need to act with urgency, because we are talking about more than £2 billion. It goes without saying that this money could be a huge boost to the humanitarian effort supporting those affected by the invasion.
Thirdly, can the Minister explain why the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned Russian assets, will be paid by the Treasury over three years rather than in one immediate instalment, especially given that it is earmarked for military equipment? Can he confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether work is actively ongoing in the FCDO and the Treasury to find additional legal solutions to allow for the mobilisation of sanctioned assets?
Finally, there has been much commentary in recent weeks about initiatives to secure peace, but we urge the Government—in the strongest terms—to leverage Britain’s influence in every way that they can to help ensure that peace is secured on Ukraine’s terms. As has been the case from the outset, it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its own future.
Of course, we want this terrible war to be brought to an end. Like President Zelensky, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. Today we have the added threat that the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to wreak destruction on our continent, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops to support Putin. We even understand that a number of Chinese civilians are supporting Russia’s campaign. The stakes could not be higher, but there remains nothing inevitable about a victory for Russia, which thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. Three years on, the cost to Russia has been enormous and unsustainable.
We acknowledge that the UK Government are now proactively seeking to end the war through negotiations and that this takes UK policy on Ukraine in a new direction, but we must also remember that we and our NATO allies have a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a collective defence inventory that is many times larger than Putin’s. The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly, and we must ensure that they have the capabilities they need in their hands and the diplomatic support they require. The Government need to bring allies with us in supporting Ukraine to achieve a just and fair peace on its terms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their work to date on sanctioning Russia. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies and the brave Ukrainian people in resisting Putin’s aggression. The support for Ukraine across this House sends a really strong message to the Kremlin, so we welcome this latest statutory instrument, which rightly tightens the screw on Russia’s ability to wage its illegal war.
These amendments expand our sanctions regime in three important ways. First, by extending export bans on a wide range of products—chemicals, electronics, plastics, metals and machinery—we are further disrupting the industrial base that fuels Putin’s war machine. Secondly, by banning the transfer of associated software and technical knowledge, including cloud-based solutions, we will prevent the back-door flow of intellectual capital into the Kremlin’s hands. Thirdly, by introducing import bans on Russian synthetic diamonds and helium products, even when processed in third countries, we will cut off future revenue streams to help fund this war. These measures respond to the real-world attempts by Russia to sidestep sanctions by using complex supply chains and third-country networks. They align the UK with our allies—the EU, the United States and the G7—making our collective response far more powerful than going it alone.
However, while I support these measures, I hope that Ministers will consider going further. If the Government are serious about holding Putin to account, sanctions must be not only enforced but escalated. The Liberal Democrats have been saying this for months: the UK should begin the seizure, not just the freezing, of Russian state assets.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is laying out, and I absolutely agree with him that the support for these measures across this House is really powerful. I was most recently in Kyiv two weeks ago, and the look on the faces of the people subjected to war crimes by the Russian army will stay with me for a very long time. That underlined to me the importance of UK efforts to support them, and I completely agree with his point about moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets. The Minister today and the Foreign Secretary earlier this week talked about working on a multilateral basis. Does my hon. Friend agree that if such an agreement cannot be found, we should consider moving on a unilateral basis in a leadership role for the United Kingdom?
James MacCleary
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is an estimated £22 billion in frozen assets from Russian central bank reserves held and locked up in the UK at the moment. That money could and should be used to help rebuild Ukraine, provide humanitarian assistance and purchase the matériel that the Ukrainians need to defend themselves, and the UK should certainly be taking a leadership role in seizing those assets as soon as we can. The United States is already moving in that direction, as are EU member states. The United Kingdom, as we have said, should be leading, not lagging behind.
We must also close the loopholes that have allowed Russian oligarchs to continue laundering their dirty money in London. That means properly resourcing the National Crime Agency, strengthening the economic crime legislation, and demanding the use of Magnitsky sanctions not just for individuals but for their family members when wealth is transferred in an attempt to dodge accountability.
As a member of the UK’s parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, I strongly support the register that the Council of Europe has established, on which the UK is taking a leading role, to record the damage that Russia has done to Ukraine. I know that the Government are backing that work, but I hope that Ministers will promote the register, which does not have a very high profile at the moment, to ensure that victims’ claims are properly documented and Russia is held meaningfully to account for its actions.
Let us not forget that Putin’s ambitions do not end with Ukraine. He is actively working to destabilise other sovereign states, including Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and others in a wider attempt to erode European stability and democratic resilience.
Let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, the sovereignty of nations and the right of people to choose peace over tyranny, and Putin’s war is a grotesque assault on all those principles. This legislation is a necessary step, but it must be the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to hold Putin and the Russian state to account. We support the motion, but we will keep pushing this Government to be bolder, faster and more determined in their support for Ukraine and its defence of the values we all hold dear.
Stephen Doughty
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. The measures introduced by this statutory instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, which, crucially, is to help secure an enduring peace and show that we remain fully behind Ukraine. I really welcome the strong support there always is across this House, from almost everybody—I note that one party is absent again. We have strong support, and although we may have disagreements with the Official Opposition across the Dispatch Boxes, but on Ukraine there has been absolute unity. I am glad that that has continued, and I thank them for that, and indeed the Liberal Democrats and other parties, too.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On the regulations, does the Minister agree that work also needs to be done on the shadow oil fleet, which is out there supplying money and support to Putin?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman might have missed it earlier on, but I outlined the significant work that we have done on that, including targeting hundreds of vessels, which is having a real impact. I will come to that impact in a moment.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked a number of specific questions. She asked about third-country circumvention and the measures we are taking diplomatically—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions.
DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten about that particular procedural aspect of talking past 7 o’clock. Thank you for giving me the eye to remind me that that was coming; I appreciate it.
As I was saying, on third-country circumvention, the shadow Minister asked me what measures we are taking. I can assure her and the House that this has been an extremely high priority for me and the Foreign Secretary. I regularly raise issues and we have a number of countries that we are particularly focused on. We have the common high priority list of items that are of most value to Russia’s military industrial complex. I assure her that we have also taken robust action against entities and individuals who have been involved in those matters. We have set out a number of those measures in past sanctions packages. I raise them on an almost weekly basis to try to bear down on that.
The right hon. Lady asked about the proceeds from Chelsea football club. We are determined for the proceeds to reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly. The shadow Minister will understand that this is a complex legal issue, but we are working with our international partners. We have engaged with Abramovich’s team and we are exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.
The right hon. Lady asked about the tranches of the ERA funding. I can assure her that two of the tranches, over two thirds of that funding, is already out the door. I spoke to Ukrainian Ministers about that and its availability, and they confirmed that they had access to it. She asked a detailed question about why it is being done in three tranches. I have just written to the shadow Foreign Secretary to set that out in more detail. We can make sure that she gets a copy of that letter. There are technical and other reasons for that, but we are ensuring that Ukraine gets what it needs right now, and is able to plan and deliver in its own defence.
The right hon. Lady asked, as others did—it was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary)—about Russian sovereign assets. I repeat what I said to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is that we are working at pace on that with others. We are exploring all lawful options to ensure that Russia pays. We have been leading; we have not been lagging. Indeed, the ERA loan is very much a testament to our leadership on this issue and I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that we are engaging very closely with international partners on that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) rightly talked about the importance of continued and absolute support for Ukraine. I can assure her that that is the case, particularly at this time. The leadership shown by President Zelensky, President Trump and others in seeking an unconditional ceasefire and a just and lasting peace is crucial. We will continue to work with them on that and we will continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours. She rightly drew attention to the activities of others—North Korea, Iran and others—in supporting Russia’s barbarous actions. We have taken action on many of those things.
The hon. Member for Lewes raised a couple of other points. On enforcement, I hope to have more news imminently and to be able to update the House on those matters. I promised that we would undertake an important review on the enforcement of sanctions across Government. It has been a crucial piece of work, which was rightly raised by many people. I hope we will have more to say on that very soon. I would also point him to the illicit finance and kleptocracy campaign led by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are taking a series of measures, working with Departments across Government, to ensure that London, our country and our wider British family are not used to support kleptocrats and those contrary to our national interests, or indeed Ukraine’s interests in this specific case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important role of the Council of Europe. I completely agree with him. My ministerial colleague the noble Lord Collins is currently attending a meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We have taken important work there—not only on the register of loss and damage, but on crucial issues such as the special tribunal against Russian aggression, as the Foreign Secretary spoke about yesterday.
There were, rightly, a number of questions about the impact that these sanctions are having. The impact is substantial: the Russian Government have been forced to take their first major tax hike in more than 20 years, and, following a loss of $7.6 billion in 2023—its first loss in 25 years—Gazprom, one of Putin’s main sources of incomes, lost $12.9 billion in 2024. Russian oil delivery now takes significantly longer due to sanctions, showing how they and the work on the shadow fleet have disrupted and impeded Russian trade.
James MacCleary
The Minister is speaking of the ways in which we are disrupting the Russian regime, but could he say a few words about those who are resisting the regime within Russia? We often speak about pressure being put on Russia to stop Putin’s aggression, but we sometimes forget about those within Russia who are putting themselves at huge risk to resist the actions of the Russian President. Will the Minister mention how we look to support those who bravely stand up and resist the regime within Russia?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, our opposition here is to Putin’s regime and what it is doing in Ukraine. We do not have a quarrel with the Russian people or with Russia; our quarrel is with Putin’s regime, what it is doing and what he has brought his country to. It was hugely humbling to meet a number of leading figures in the past few weeks, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was brutally imprisoned by Putin’s regime, and Yulia Navalnaya, whose husband, Alexei Navalny, died in prison. We continue to call for the release of Russian political prisoners; their imprisonment is absolutely abhorrent.
These measures are hugely important and are having an impact, and I welcome the unified support across the House for them. I commend these regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Resolved,
That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mary Curnock Cook CBE be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 2 June 2025 to 31 May 2030.—(Lucy Powell.)
Petitions
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Fakenham is the largest town in my constituency, and yet it has not had a permanent post office for more than five years. The town’s high street banks are also closing one after the other, leaving no access to cash deposits for local businesses. This paper petition for a permanent post office for Fakenham, together with an online similar version, has collected 1,223 signatures in order to resolve those problems. It declares that
“residents of Fakenham and the surrounding villages need access to a permanent Post Office to service the needs of the community”,
and asks that the chief executive and the Government work with the banks to provide a long-term solution for access to cash and postal services through a permanent post office in the heart of Fakenham.
The petitioners therefore request that
“the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that a permanent Post Office is delivered to serve the needs of the Fakenham and the surrounding villages.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Broadland and Fakenham,
Declares that residents of Fakenham and the surrounding villages need access to a permanent Post Office to service the needs of our community; asks that the Chief Executive and the Government listen to our voices and work with the banks to provide a long term solution to access to cash and postal services through a Post Office in the heart of our town; and notes that an online petition on the same issue has collected 1,223 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that a permanent Post Office is delivered to serve the needs of the Fakenham and the surrounding villages.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003068]
Plastic Recycling in Leamington: Environmental Impact
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I will, if I may, start by encouraging you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine being in your own home and unable to eat with your family, unable to leave food for even a minute without your kitchen being swarmed with flies, and unable to sleep in your own bed without flies landing on your face. Imagine flies everywhere, in every room of your house, in business premises, in pubs, in restaurants and in takeaways, and vile odours permeating your life whether at home, walking the streets or driving your car. That is the reality for hundreds of families in one part my constituency.
If that is not sufficiently real for those present, let me try to bring alive just how awful this is with the experience of one resident, who wrote to me saying:
“The day my son asked when mummy was going to stop the flies so he could eat his dinner without flies crawling into his mouth...was when I realised how terrible it had got.”
Imagine children being unable to eat without flies crawling into their mouths.
At a time when so many voters feel disillusioned with politics, it is more important than ever that Government—national and local—as well as their agencies address the everyday problems that impact on people’s lives. And the issue of flies and odours blighting families and whole communities is one such a problem.
I estimate that as many as 10,000—if not more—of my constituents in south Warwick, South Leamington and Whitnash are impacted by this. They have faced swarms of flies and foul odours for three years running. Their houses are infested with flies. They are unable to open their windows for fear of swarms entering their home. They are unable to prepare food in their kitchen without the constant cleaning of their work surfaces to clean off the fly excrement, which also adheres to their walls. Would any Member of this House be satisfied with their family living like that? This is not just a minor inconvenience; this is ruining people’s lives. People are getting ill, and some residents are actually selling up.
Then there is the all-pervasive foul-smelling odour. Constituents describe the smell as being like “raw sewage”. They say it is “sulphuric” and “toxic”. Many have told me that the smell is “utterly unbearable”. I have smelt it myself on many occasions. Again, this is substantially harming people and their lives. Two constituents have told me that their asthma has significantly worsened due to the smell, and, as a result, they have had to increase their medication. This is clearly a public health risk and it should be treated as such.
I hope that I have spelled out—albeit briefly—just how awful this is for my constituents, and it should not have been allowed to continue for three months let alone three years. Some may be thinking that this this sounds not too dissimilar to the plague of flies in the Book of Exodus, but, no, God is not to blame for this. The residents are clear: they believe, and I agree with them, that the source of this problem is the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant, located less than 200 metres from a significant volume of local housing.
Let me be very clear: I am by no means against recycling. We know that recycling plants have a crucial role to play in sustainability. The issue here is not recycling but how businesses are held to account—and authorities demanding that they take seriously their commitment to their neighbours and their impacts on the local environment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on behalf of his constituents. I am almost flabbergasted that the local council has not taken action to address this issue. What has it done and what is it going to do to take away this enormous fly problem? The Book of Exodus does talk about the plague of flies, but I know that the council has been blamed for this one.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Member—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his intervention. The council does have a role, and I will come on to that in more depth. It has tried to get involved and understand the nature of the problem, and to exercise certain powers, but this is where national Government, particularly the Environment Agency, have a role to play, as I will discuss. The council really does not have the powers that it needs to tackle local environmental health, which is its responsibility.
This is a case of desperately poor planning legislation—approved by the last Conservative Government and locally by a Conservative council—with a new light industrial estate built off a road that is one of the main arteries of south Leamington. The planning issue is not so much in the approval of the building of light industrial sheds—we see them all over the place—but in the failure to realise that a commercial use of the site, such as for recycling food packaging, would have a significant impact on a residential area. No approval was given by the local planning committee for what the actual use of the site would be; it was purely for the building of the sheds.
The local geography could not be worse. Hundreds of homes are on this road and thousands are off it. To have allowed a recycling plant that receives plastic covered in food waste on a daily basis to be built across the road from thousands of residents is absurd. The plant receives food and drink cartons, which we all discard daily and put into our recycling bins, where they can often sit for a couple of weeks. Then they are collected and taken to central processing depots such as the one in my constituency. They are perfect environments for flies to breed in.
It should not have taken a situation like this to make issues with the planning system so clear, but should anyone be in any doubt about the scale of the problem, let me be categorical: I have had reams of complaints and evidence sent to my office. There is a parallel between this site and the dreadful Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which many of us will have heard about over many years. Last Friday evening I informed residents that I had secured this debate, and by Monday morning my office had received over 100 complaints, with over 80% blaming the site that we believe to be the source of the problem: Berry Polymers.
When I held a public meeting, over 100 people attended, but hundreds more wanted to be there. That shows the strength of feeling on this issue and hopefully highlights to the Minister how badly it is affecting people’s lives. To further understand the effects on people, I conducted a survey, asking on a scale of one to 10 how badly the flies and smell had impacted people’s lives over the previous two years, with 10 being that it had completely impacted them. The average response was eight out of 10.
To exemplify how awful the situation is for residents, I will read some particularly distressing quotes. One resident said:
“I have to have fly nets over my foster babies’ cots and bouncers”.
Another said:
“It is apocalyptic, the flies affect every minute of your day, from waking, to washing, preparing food, working, cleaning, trying to sleep.”
Another said:
“I’ve had to come away from various activities around town including paying my respects in the local cemetery because of the smell. Twice it’s been so bad I’ve vomited while driving my car along Heathcote Road, which could cause an accident”.
I hope that highlights for the Minister and those listening the severity of the problem and the urgent need for action. For clarity, I reiterate that those complaints have come in only in the past three days.
My constituents cannot sleep. Their children cannot play outside. They cannot eat without being swarmed by flies and engulfed in disgusting smells. To avoid any doubt over who the culprit is, I will bring to the Minister’s attention some additional evidence. There are tens of households who say that the problem only began after the plant opened. One family had lived there for 30 years before the plant opened, and they never complained about a smell or flies, but now they say that it is unbearable.
It is not only residents who are complaining but former employees of the site. My office spoke to one former employee, who will remain anonymous. They said:
“Conditions were so poor nobody should have been working there.”
They commented that when staff were walking around on site there were flies all over them, on their clothes, and biting them. Staff were expected to spend their breaks in a room covered in flies, and any food they tried to eat in there ended up with flies all over it. I have seen their evidence, and I have shared it with the Environment Agency and the Government. I have been to the site and seen the piles of thousands of flies lying around in the working area. That cannot be right; it is a health and safety issue for the people who have to work there. There are also flies flying around in the washrooms of that business. I cannot understand why it is still allowed to operate. The employees were in no doubt about the cause. They said that
“Berry was absolutely at fault and clearly the cause of the issue impacting the community.”
Local residents, former employees and I all believe that the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant is responsible for these issues.
Yet here we are, two years on, with no respite other than in the winter months, when the flies abate but the odours persist. We may ask, have the residents followed the correct complaints process and, likewise, have I? Absolutely. First, I have raised it many times with the Environment Agency on behalf of residents. I have repeatedly conveyed the severity of the situation and the horrific impact on people’s lives. After no success with the Environment Agency, I turned to the Minister under the last Government. After months of correspondence, I finally secured a meeting with that Minister in May 2024, but with the general election, it led to nothing. Following the election, I have twice met the new Minister, who I know fully understands the severity of the issue. The Minister swiftly set up a meeting with the Environment Agency to ensure the best available techniques are being used. I appreciate the pace with which the Department worked, but my constituents need answers now. They cannot be kept waiting.
I again followed up with the Environment Agency just a few weeks ago in April, to which it replied that it had only received two complaints. Yet we have received over a hundred in three days and hundreds over the course of three years, and we hear from residents on an almost daily basis that the problems persist. The Environment Agency is ignoring the complaints it has received over the past couple of years. The residents are busy people who lead busy lives; they cannot keep repeating the same complaint about the same company. They have been reporting these issues for years and have got nowhere, so they can be forgiven for not wanting to spend time every day reporting into a system that they do not believe works for them. They are fed up, and rightly so.
The Environment Agency has written to me to say that it
“did substantiate a strong odour on site”,
and that it is now
“investigating this further and taking appropriate steps to ensure that they (Berry) comply with all requirements to mitigate any potential impact on the local community”.
By coincidence, the Environment Agency came back to me just yesterday—perhaps because I had an Adjournment debate tonight. I have been chasing it for action on this issue for 18 months because my community and its residents’ lives are blighted by it. The EA has said it is happy to meet me and is in the process of setting up a shiny new engagement website—but it misses the point. We have already met on several occasions. In previous meetings, we agreed on the need for officers on the ground to determine the origin of the flies and the source of the odour, and experience how awful the situation is. It now believes us on the source of the odour.
Where are we now? It should not be up to residents to go around with fly swatters and fly traps, which is one of the suggestions, to prove to the Environment Agency how severe the problem is. We did not agree on the need for a new website, as that represents more time-wasting and more faffing around while constituents go into a third summer, facing horrendous conditions at home, in their gardens and on their streets.
The Minister may be new to this topic, but I have heard this all before and yet nothing has changed. Berry Polymers has now declared that it will require advance notice of any unannounced visit by me for “health and safety reasons”. Previously, I visited the site and that visit was unannounced, so I do not understand it. Why should I be prevented from trying to hold businesses like that to account when they cause an environmental hazard to many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents? I take their health and safety concerns very seriously, and if I smell foul smells and see swarms of flies blighting my constituents’ lives, I want to see action.
I know that the Minister takes the issue incredibly seriously. I must therefore insist that the Government now take action. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State holds the power
“to agree the Environment Agency’s overall priorities and objectives”
and “to allocate resources” accordingly. The Department has the capability to fix the issue. Now is the time for action.
What am I asking for? I am calling for an urgent review of the Environment Agency’s initial decision; an immediate unannounced visit to the site, as well as repeated visits, with a team of Environment Agency officers to test the odours and count the thousands of flies; and a visit to neighbouring homes to see what my residents have to cope with and to take their concerns seriously.
When the Environment Agency wrote to me in April, it said that it would take appropriate steps after its previous visit, but what exactly has been done? I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined what the EA has done since the last visit to the site on 1 April. I would like to request an urgent meeting with the chief executive of the EA, because it has now got to that level, and I would like the Minister’s support in securing such a meeting. A directive from the Minister and the Government to the EA is needed to get it to act, and to act with authority.
Finally, if the Berry Polymers recycling plant is found to have breached regulations, it should be shut down as a matter of urgency. I am not against recycling—as I say, I am absolutely pro recycling—but I cannot believe this plant was allowed to be sited so close to thousands of homes. I will conclude my speech by making it crystal clear to the Minister, the Environment Agency and Berry Polymers that I will not allow residents to suffer more of this and I will not stop fighting for my constituents until this is resolved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). I know his area well and he has made a powerful and compelling speech on behalf of his constituents. We have a commitment to transition to a circular economy and to try to prevent waste from occurring in the first place, but where it does occur we need to manage it in the most resource-efficient way possible. That is really important for the management of plastic waste. We want to minimise the use of plastics, and it is clear that we need to recycle them to prevent them from being landfilled or incinerated.
My hon. Friend has described a litany of distressing incidents, including the failure around planning permission being given for this light industrial estate so close to residents’ houses and the dreadful examples of children asking their parents, “How can I eat my dinner without flies flying into my mouth?” That is something we would not wish on our worst enemies, and I am truly sorry that his constituents have had to put up with this terrible situation.
Plastics for recycling come from a wide range of sources across households and industry, and they need to be cleaned before recycling. That is a note to all of us when we chuck our dirty, unrinsed yoghurt pots into the recycling. Someone has to deal with them later on. There is no such place as “away”. If we want the material to be suitable for remanufacture, we have to clean up our own mess before we hand it on for materials reprocessing. It is clear that, in this case, this activity has impacted on my hon. Friend’s constituents.
We have regulations in place to protect communities. Recycling plants are holders of environmental permits. Those permits are issued by the Environment Agency and they impose conditions on operators about waste handling, in order to mitigate—that is, reduce—environmental risks such as odour and noise, as well as other pollution risks. The Environment Agency regulates the holders of those permits by making periodic visits to inspect activities, to ensure that they are in line with the conditions of the permit. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend has been conducting his own unannounced visits and I do hope he finds a way to continue them, or finds other people to do them for him in the event that he is barred. The EA works with the operators of facilities to ensure compliance, issuing through guidance and advice and, when necessary, serving notices on an operator to mandate actions to improve compliance, such as changes to how they carry out the work or how risks are managed.
I am really sorry that residents are experiencing odours and flies in South Leamington, Warwick Gates, Heathcote and Whitnash. The Environment Agency and Warwick district council have been working together to investigate these issues, but having heard what my hon. Friend has said tonight, I would advise him—I will do my best with this through my private office—to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive is also made aware of the unhygienic working practices that workers at that site are clearly experiencing. If it is bad in the neighbouring houses, I am keen to hear what it is like for people taking their breaks and eating their packed lunches on that site, because I cannot imagine that it meets modern working condition standards.
I understand that the Berry Polymers plant in Leamington Spa sources its material largely from municipal waste, which it cleans on site before recycling into material to go back into manufacturing. The site permit requires an odour management plan, which controls the treatment for the washing of plastic, as well as several other potentially odorous—that is, smelly—processes. As these activities are included in the permit, appropriate enforcement action can be taken should odours be assessed as contravening the plan. The odour management plan includes details about the storage and handling of incoming materials that are recognised as potentially odorous.
The current permit conditions in relation to the open water treatment plant to treat water used from the washing of plastics are being reviewed by the Environment Agency to ensure that all required conditions are in place to regulate the activity. I have a regular Environment Agency update and will be asking for regular updates on this plant and for it to be added to my risk update reporting.
The Environment Agency was first made aware of residents’ fly issues in July 2023, as my hon. Friend says, with a volume of odour reports also being reported in August. It visited two sites in the area regularly, including the Berry Polymers site, and required action to be taken to prevent risks of odours and flies. The actions were to implement fly monitoring, provide evidence of pest management training for staff, and consistently improve pest and odour management plans. As my hon. Friend says, this has been going on for nearly two years.
In January 2024, an external entomologist—an insect specialist—was contracted to conduct a site inspection. Following their recommendations, an improvement plan was produced with further actions. Fly control boards were installed at the plant to kill flies, and fly traps were also installed inside and out to kill flies and allow species of flies to be monitored.
The Environment Agency also asked for volunteers in the local community to conduct fly monitoring in their homes. I sort of agree with my hon. Friend when he asks, “Whose job is it?” I understand residents’ reluctance; only one person responded. Data collection and evidence are an important part of compliance and permit regulatory activity, so if we want action to be taken, we have to have the proof, so I recommend that he re-engages.
In August and September 2024, the monitoring recorded that numbers of flies were not at levels likely to cause distress. However, the Environment Agency continues to investigate all odour reports received and has undertaken 26 unannounced site inspections where odour has been assessed. An additional 11 odour assessments have been conducted in the local area, where sustained odour at levels likely to cause offence has not been identified. However, I take on board what my hon. Friend says about constituents vomiting in their cars as they drive past—he has given a graphic description of the impacts. An odour assessment was carried out on Saturday 1 March. Multiple locations within the locality were visited. Faint and sporadic odours were identified. However, these were not detected at the site boundary. Since March, odour reports have increased—again, it is a hot weather issue. There were 31 reports in March and 32 in April.
In April, the operator notified the Environment Agency of an issue with an on-site sedimentation tank and maintenance was carried out on 25 April to address it. On 15 April, the EA required the operator to provide further information regarding maintenance of the waste water treatment plant, staff training and odour monitoring. A response has been received and is being assessed. Officers carried out further off-site amenity checks on 25 April. No odour or notably elevated fly numbers were noted. A further site visit was conducted last week on 7 May, and no breaches were identified. There were no off-site amenity issues.
The EA is committed, as am I, to ensuring compliance at the facilities that it regulates and that all appropriate measures are in place. I think my hon. Friend will agree— he was very generous in his speech—that we have taken very swift action to tackle waste issues across the country. The EA will continue to respond to reports of odour and flies, and to proactively inspect Berry Polymers and any other permitted or exempt site in the area that it considers a potential source of flies or odour.
The local environment team and the local council have worked together to ensure that residents are kept up to date with investigations and findings through an online community page and monthly briefing notes, but I understand that residents might feel helpless and hopeless. I encourage them to continue taking action and to report fly, odour or noise issues linked to permitted sites, including Berry Polymers, through the 24-hour Environment Agency hotline on 0800 80 70 60. Those reports help the Environment Agency and partners to investigate and assess the impact of all issues.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive response. The frustration is that, after two years, there is real fatigue among the community about the district council, the Environment Agency and environmental health not listening and taking this problem seriously, so I do not think that we can just complete online forms and rely on them to respond. If Berry Polymers does not change, this is the last chance for it. We have seen video evidence of its washrooms, with flies flying around. The place needs shutting down if there is one more example of its failing to maintain proper conditions in the workplace or the wider environment.
Mary Creagh
I cannot, as a Minister, pass judgment on any permitted operator, as doing so could be prejudicial to any ongoing or potential enforcement action. My hon. Friend has had a letter from the Environment Agency—I have seen that letter. We must move from a world in which regulatory activity is focused on activity rather than on progress. I am very keen that the Environment Agency should make progress with the fly and odour issues that he has spoken about so eloquently.
I will, as I say, keep a close eye on this matter. I will push officials for clear and unambiguous action to ensure that, if we have another warm summer, my hon. Friend’s constituents are not suffering in what can only be described as utterly horrible and unacceptable living conditions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations will remove the time limit on the temporary exemption that pension funds have from clearing over-the-counter derivatives contracts, such as interest rate swaps, through a central counterparty. The exemption will continue indefinitely, ending the need for the Government to renew it every two years if they conclude that it is necessary.
The draft regulations will help UK pensioners by supporting pension funds’ ability to invest in assets that generate returns for their benefit. Maintaining the exemption is also in line with the Government’s priorities to increase productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth.
Central counterparties are a type of financial market infrastructure that firms use to reduce risks when trading on financial markets. They sit between the buyers and sellers of financial instruments, providing assurance that contractual obligations will be fulfilled. They do so by collecting collateral, known as margin, from all their users, which can be used to cover any shortfall if a default occurs. The process of transacting through a CCP is known as clearing.
In 2009, G20 countries agreed that certain standard derivatives contracts should be cleared through CCPs to reduce risks in the financial system. In the EU, this was implemented through legislation and is known as the clearing obligation. At the time, it was decided that pension funds should be exempted from the obligation because of the particular challenges that pension funds would face in meeting CCP margin requirements.
CCPs require certain types of margin to be posted in cash. Pension funds do not usually hold large cash reserves, as they invest a large majority of their resources in assets such as gilts and corporate bonds to provide returns for pension holders, meaning that meeting the requirement to post margin in cash can be more difficult for pension funds than for other firms. Requiring pension funds to clear their derivatives could cause them to increase their cash holdings, reducing their investment in other assets and their ability to generate returns for future pensioners over the longer term.
The UK assimilated the clearing obligation and the exemption into UK domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was passed under the previous Government. The exemption was initially designed as a temporary measure, but it has since been extended several times. At present, the Government need to lay secondary legislation every two years if they conclude that it is necessary to extend the exemption. The most recent extension was in June 2023, under the previous Government, who noted that
“it would be desirable to put in place a longer-term policy approach and remove the need for future temporary extensions”.
That is what the draft regulations seek to achieve.
The Treasury has since conducted a review of the exemption, working closely with UK financial services regulators and with input gathered from industry stakeholders through a call for evidence, which was launched in November 2023. The review found that requiring pension funds to clear derivatives could bring financial stability benefits, such as reducing counterparty risk, and could enhance resilience to shocks by increasing pension funds’ cash buffers. However, it identified concerns from some market participants that removing the exemption could increase pressure on the liquidity management of pension funds, particularly under stressed market conditions, which could increase risks to financial stability.
The review also found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in more productive assets if the exemption were removed. That could reduce their returns, with a potential impact on the retirement benefits of future pensioners; it would also be inconsistent with the objectives of the Government’s wider growth reforms, including the pensions investment review, which seeks to unlock new productive investment by pension funds in things like businesses and infrastructure to support economic growth.
Overall, the Government concluded that there was clear evidence that removing the exemption would reduce pension funds’ ability to invest in productive assets, and that that could have an adverse effect on the retirement benefits of future pensioners, while the extent to which removing the exemption would generate direct financial stability benefits was very unclear. The Government have decided that, on balance, it is appropriate to maintain the exemption for the longer term. However, we will keep the policy under review, in co-ordination with the financial services regulators. If there are changes to market dynamics or wider Government reforms that have a material impact on the value of mandatory clearing for pension funds, the Government may reassess the issue.
The draft regulations will implement that policy decision by removing the time limit on the exemption, preventing it from expiring on 18 June this year, as is currently scheduled. They will also remove the Treasury’s power to extend the exemption by two years at a time if it concludes that that is necessary; as the exemption will have no time limit, that power will obviously no longer be required. Firms will not have to do anything differently as a result of the draft regulations, because they will maintain the status quo. This approach provides longer-term clarity and certainty for market participants on the policy position, which will support planning for their long-term investment strategies.
The regulations will maintain this important exemption for the longer term. They will provide certainty for pension funds and will remove the need for the Government to renew the exemption every two years via secondary legislation. They will support pension funds’ ability to generate returns, which fund the retirement benefits of future pensioners, and align with the Government’s objectives to unlock productive investment to support economic growth. I hope that the Committee feels able to support the draft regulations and their objectives; I commend them to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Yet again, we are in glorious agreement on both sides of Committee Room 9, which is rather fun. The Opposition absolutely agree with the draft regulations; as the Minister rightly says, the work was started under the last Government, and it is important that we continue to support it. However, we recognise the critical role that central clearing plays in safeguarding financial security.
The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which represents schemes with more than £1.3 trillion in assets, acknowledges that there are benefits: clearing reduces counterparty risk, increases transparency and, in normal times, helps to protect members’ savings. However, the evidence from the sector and, importantly, the experience of the liability-driven investment crisis in 2022 show that mandatory clearing presents a real challenge for pension funds. Most UK schemes do not hold large cash reserves, nor should they: the money should be invested for long-term returns for their pensioners.
The need to raise cash quickly to meet central counterparty margin calls can force schemes to sell assets at precisely the wrong moment, undermining members’ returns and potentially undermining market stability. The LDI crisis in 2022 made things pretty clear; I remind hon. Members that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister were sacked for creating that chaos. [Interruption.] It’s a fact of life.
In the consultation undertaken by the previous Government, many stakeholders argued that a permanent exemption is the only way to provide certainty and avoid undermining the Government’s own ambitions in the Mansion House reforms. If the exemption were removed, schemes would be forced to hold more liquid, low-return assets, including cash, which would reduce the capital available for long-term investment in the economy. I am therefore delighted to support the draft regulations, but I have a couple of questions.
First, on divergence from the European Union, the UK has opted for an indefinite exemption period, whereas the EU has allowed it to lapse, so clearing is now in place there, as it is in the US. Respondents to the call for evidence highlighted structural differences between the UK and the EU and US markets. Have the Government looked at the effect that that divergence might have on the competitiveness of the UK pension industry and on the relative stability of markets?
My second question is about the long-term intentions as to mandatory clearing. I completely understand that the motivation behind the change is to remove the two-yearly uncertainty. However, the draft regulations provide for a permanent exemption, rather than ruling out clearing in permanency. The difference is a very subtle one, but have the Government considered ruling it out rather than having a permanent exemption? As we are looking at stability for pension funds, I would be interested to hear the Government’s point of view. However, the Opposition certainly do not seek to divide the Committee on this very good policy, which was initiated by the previous Government in one of their more glorious moments.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Minister made her case very well. The Liberal Democrats recognise that there is no viable widely adopted method for pension funds to meet the CCP margin requirements without harming pension outcomes. Although we all recognise how important clearing is for broader market stability, we also recognise that enforcing it on pension funds right now could do more harm than good. In that spirit, I add our support to the cross-party agreement on the draft regulations, which will create a permanent exemption.
Emma Reynolds
I thank both hon. Members. As I expected, the shadow Minister agrees with the policy of the previous Government. He asked a couple of questions, and I will take them in the wrong order.
The shadow Minister is right that there is a very slight difference between ruling clearing out completely and making the exemption permanent, but the outcome, which is what we are focusing on, is exactly the same. We have said that we will keep the policy under review if we need to, but overall we think that a permanent exemption gives the industry a lot more certainty than having to roll the exemption over every couple of years. I hope that that gives him some comfort.
In a way, the shadow Minister has answered his own question on divergence from the EU. Our pension systems and the UK defined-benefit market are structurally different from those in other jurisdictions such as the US and the European Union, so we think it entirely appropriate to take a different decision on this issue. The Government are committed to maintaining our high standards of regulation and financial services, including adhering to relevant international standards where appropriate, but we do not think that this will create a divergence that is worrying in any way.
I completely concur with the hon. Member for St Albans that the focus should be on pension outcomes. Maintaining the exemption over time will give certainty to those in the industry, so that they can invest, over the longer term, in assets that will produce returns for their members and therefore pay out the defined-benefit pensions that they are contractually obliged to provide for their members. I hope that I have answered all the Committee’s questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Officially, I think that Members have to ask my permission to remove their jackets, so I can give a unilateral order, on a hot day like this, that you may all have it off—[Laughter.] You may all remove your jackets; it is hot, especially for women of a certain age. We now come to clause 47.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 47, page 62, leave out from line 32 to line 2 on page 63.
This relates to amendment 22. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 22, in clause 47, page 63, leave out lines 14 to 17.
This relates to amendment 21. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq—although I was not sure how much of a pleasure until you introduced the sitting in the way that you did.
Amendments 21 and 22 would remove the requirement on unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, simply based on the resources that unitary authorities have and the stretch under which they have been placed.
My own authority is working hard to stave off financial challenges after being left with a massive deficit to manage—£2 of every £3 of the council’s funding is spent on care for children and adults, but it also has to prepare a new local plan. It has permission for 11,000 homes that are not yet built, but the new plan will require a 41% increase in housing allocations in Somerset, which is a massive task that will cost millions of pounds. For an individual unitary authority, having to not only establish a unitary local plan but, at the same time, prepare a spatial development strategy seems over the top. That should be reserved for mayoral authorities, where a strategic authority is established.
We do not oppose the concept of spatial development strategies; for strategic-level authorities, they could be a sensible addition to the planning system to reintroduce the strategic level of planning that was taken away. However, we are concerned about the significant additional burden on unitary authorities in also being required to prepare spatial development strategies that are meant to be more strategic in nature and have more than a single unitary authority area. With that in mind, I commend amendments 21 and 22 to the Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to resume our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling amendment 21, but the Government will have to resist it for reasons that I will set out. Having said that, as we have already discussed in previous sessions, we absolutely recognise the real challenges that local planning authorities face not only in resourcing but more widely in capability and capacity. We have discussed a number of the measures that the Government are taking, both in the Bill and outside it, to address that challenge.
Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities ineligible to produce a spatial development plan. It is the Government’s intention that, in the future, all spatial development strategies will be produced by strategic authorities in accordance with our devolution framework, including combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority. While we are making substantial progress, with six areas currently part of the devolution priority programme, the establishment of strategic authorities across the whole of England will be a gradual process.
However, the Government want to move quickly on strategic planning. That means that, as well as combined authorities and combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities are being made into strategic planning authorities with a requirement to produce a spatial development strategy. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would remove the requirement for those aforementioned authorities.
The requirement to produce a spatial development strategy will be realised either individually or in defined groupings; in some cases, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities may also be grouped with a combined authority or combined county authority. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
Dr Huq, I do not know whether I get the opportunity to sum up, so I have jumped in with an intervention. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances in which an individual unitary authority—perhaps a unitary county such as Somerset, or Oxfordshire, if it becomes a unitary county—would be required to, on its own, prepare a spatial development strategy? Will all unitary authorities be required to prepare spatial development strategies on top of, and in parallel with, preparing local plans? I think that that clarification would be helpful.
The Chair
Apparently, there will be a chance to sum up and to respond to the summing up.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you for that clarification, Dr Huq; we may hear further from the hon. Gentleman on that point. Just to be clear, the Government are driving for universal coverage for strategic planning across the whole of England, so, either individually or in defined groupings, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will have to, in some form, be part of producing a spatial development strategy.
As I said, I very much recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman posed around resourcing. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to the elements that we discussed yesterday—the £46 million that the Budget allocated to local planning authority capacity and capability, and the measures in the Bill allowing for the setting of fees locally and the ringfencing of those fees—the Government have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We recognise the need for core funding and that is being negotiated with the Treasury as part of the spending review for 2026 to 2029.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Could the Minister outline what would happen if a unitary council created a spatial development strategy and then became part of a larger, bigger authority under the devolution? What would happen to their specific strategy, and would that new authority, as a bigger authority, have to create a new SDS across the whole area?
Matthew Pennycook
Over time, spatial development strategies will have to reflect the appropriate geographies at the point they are renewed and refreshed—if that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. But as I said, either individually or in groupings through the strategic boards we are creating, we will have to have those SDSs in places, although obviously the geographies will be able to change over time, if that is the wish of the component member authorities.
As I was saying, for the reasons I have outlined the Government believe that the legislation, as drafted, is essential to support the introduction of our strategic planning policy, which is an important means of ensuring our pro-growth agenda and that we are able to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. As we have argued on many occasions, the introduction of a robust, universal system of strategic planning is a core part of the Government’s reform agenda, and we think that the Bill is required to operate in the way that I have set out. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and he has my respect for bringing strategic planning back into the system. I know he has worked on that for a number of years; some of us have also worked on regional planning for a number of years and can remember the regional spatial strategy processes—in fact, took part in them. However, the question of individual unitary authorities preparing SDSs remains quite a challenge.
Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could say something about the timescale. I can see that the Government are moving towards universal coverage of mayoral—well, strategic—authorities, as well as SDSs, which makes sense, but the timescale will be crucial here. If an individual authority becomes something of an orphan, or it needs time to ally itself with others and agree its strategic authority area—for example, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire put forward their proposal but were knocked back, so they cannot establish that strategic authority—it would seem unfair for those authorities to be required to prepare three SDSs for those three counties on top of three local plans. That is a massive amount of work. We must not underestimate the weight of work that goes into a local plan. For a huge area such as Somerset, it will costs tens of millions of pounds and it will take several years. For those three authorities also to be required to prepare an SDS at the same time would be unfortunate.
If the timing could work such that—this may be the Government’s intention—those authorities have sufficient time to establish their mayoral strategic authorities first, and then develop an SDS, that would appear to be a much better way. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on that. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Minister, I am advised that you are not obliged to speak now—you can respond in writing—but if you wish to, you can.
Matthew Pennycook
I will address a couple of points to give the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington some reassurance. First, I very much welcome his support for the reintroduction of sub-regional strategic planning—I would actually say introduction, because we are not proposing a regional model along the lines of what happened before.
In our view, there has been a clear lack of strategic planning and of those effective cross-boundary mechanisms between local authorities for delivering housing growth in the past 14 years. Therefore, we do not intend to wait for strategic planning to be reintroduced. It is the Government’s intention for all future SDSs to be produced by strategic authorities, but I recognise that there is a sequencing issue here.
As I have said, however, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, and the Government want all areas of England to feel the benefit of effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Strategic planning boards will allow areas outside of strategic authorities to do that, so we think there is a mechanism that will allow for those instances where a strategic authority is not yet in place. As I said, however, I do recognise the sequencing issue.
To reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, we have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We expect all local planning authorities within the area of a strategic planning authority, such as district councils within a combined authority, to be closely involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, including by sharing staff members and expertise. That is already standard practice in areas producing a joint local plan, which can be done at the discretion of local authorities wishing to take part, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured him and other hon. Members as to the Government’s intentions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 63, leave out from line 28 to the end of line 28 on page 65.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 122, in clause 47, page 64, line 40, at end insert—
“(e) requiring the production of infrastructure delivery plans;
(f) funding for meeting the requirements of this subsection.”
This amendment would extend the list of matters which the Secretary of State could include in regulations about strategic planning boards.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I cannot tell you how delighted I am to be here for the second day in a row, with a third day tomorrow.
This simple amendment would block the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities in proposed new sections 12B and 12C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On the consultation for the spatial development strategy, we also think the consultation requirement in proposed new section 12H(3) should be replaced with a simple requirement to consult the public.
Blocking the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities would allow for greater local control and flexibility in decision making. It would ensure that planning decisions remained more closely aligned with the specific needs and priorities of individual communities, rather than being imposed by a centralised authority. Local authorities often have a better understanding of their residents’ needs, the environmental considerations and the unique challenges, making them more capable of tailoring development plans to suit their areas.
Retaining those powers at the local level would also promote accountability, as local officials and politicians are directly answerable to the communities they serve, and foster a more transparent and responsible planning process. That approach would encourage more balanced development that reflects local aspirations, while reducing the risk of a one-size-fits-all solution imposed from above.
We take into account the comments of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington about the burden on local authorities. I think the Minister has responded to that issue, but I would like to press him further on the Government’s drive to unitarisation. He is outlining that, as we go through, this would be a gradual process, but I hope he would acknowledge that there is a risk that the repeated reforming of local government could mean added bureaucracy and a repeated requirement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, to amalgamate plans and go through another review period. I hope the Minister can reassure us that there would be no burden on local authorities in relation to amendment 21, which slightly ties into the concerns and aspirations behind why amendment 76 was tabled, but I do not intend to debate this amendment for very long.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I bob to speak to amendment 122. Is now the right time?
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and thank you for your ongoing generosity to those of us who continue to learn how Bill Committees work.
Lib Dem amendment 122 would require the production of infrastructure delivery plans by local authorities and accompanying funding to meet the requirements of those. I note the comments of other hon. Members about taking into account the administrative burden on local authorities; we need to strike the optimum balance here, but I shall explain why I think infrastructure development plans are of merit and need to be mandated.
For those not familiar with IDPs—to use yet another dreaded acronym—I should say that they are developed during the local plan-making stage and serve as an important part of the evidence base and quality of those local plans. They identify and schedule the infrastructure needs for a community, including social, physical and green infrastructure, all of which are needed in addition to houses for the high quality, well-functioning communities we all wish to see.
The planning policy team at the local authority writes to all infrastructure providers to ask them to identify what infrastructure will be needed to accompany the development that the local plan is proposing. That becomes a list, which is tested through a viability assessment and local plan examination. Once the plan is adopted, and at the point where planning applications are submitted, planning officers will use the IDP to help to secure infrastructure—through direct delivery, financial contributions or indeed a mix of the two. IDPs are therefore an important part of both securing infrastructure and tracking the progress of its delivery.
However, at present IDPs are not compulsory and are not specified in the national planning policy framework or the Government’s planning practice guidance. Local plans are supposed to be reviewed every five years, although many are not, and by extension IDPs may be updated only infrequently. We think Government should compel local authorities to produce infrastructure delivery plans so that communities get the necessary infrastructure to create the well-function communities that we need to transform our country.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. As we have seen, there are very many amendments to this part of the Bill, which speaks to the fact that it is one of the most important parts of the legislation the Government are moving through. It is absolutely necessary that it should happen, but I want to make a quick point about infrastructure that is pertinent to this amendment.
As the Minister knows, and the Committee may know, I represent Ebbsfleet Garden City in Dartford: a new community that has arisen from no homes in about 2015 to around 5,000 now, and is due to be 15,000 by the middle of the next decade. We have seen with Ebbsfleet Garden City the importance of social and physical infrastructure being built alongside homes. Generally, the corporation there has done a good job in making sure that there are schools, recreation areas, community spaces and medical facilities; the timing has not always been brilliant, and sometimes the growth of the homes has outstripped the provision of infrastructure, but that infrastructure does eventually get delivered.
It is extremely important that the Minister gives an assurance, in line with what the amendment, I know, is seeking to do. I do not know whether the precise format that the amendment suggests is the right way to do it, but it is vital that we see that social and physical infrastructure grow at the same time as the housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member agree that nothing in this Bill makes developers build the social infrastructure that he is describing, which many communities desperately need, first—or at all?
Jim Dickson
The hon. Member is helping me to make my point. The only difference I have with him is that I know that the Government intend to ensure that infrastructure appears at the same time as homes and the Minister will provide reassurance on that. It is vital that that happens, via either a development corporation with those powers, or the spatial development strategies that we are discussing. Let us ensure that we do build the physical and social infrastructure at the same time as homes, with the examples of generally good development we see in Ebbsfleet Garden City reproduced elsewhere, as the Government meet their ambitious plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me begin with amendment 76, tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which seeks to remove provision for the establishment of strategic planning boards that would allow two or more authorities to produce a spatial development strategy jointly. The main purpose of strategic planning is to provide a mechanism for cross-boundary planning between local planning authorities and to plan for growth on a scale that is larger than local. For that to be done as effectively as possible, it is essential that spatial development strategies are produced across the most appropriate geographies. To that end, it will be necessary for some strategic planning authorities to be grouped together so that they can produce a spatial development strategy across their combined area. Unless SDSs are produced across appropriate geographies, they will not be as effective as they could be and the full benefits of strategic planning will not be realised.
To address the perfectly reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, as I said, and the Government want all areas of England to benefit from effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Therefore, in some cases, responsibility for producing an SDS will transfer between different authorities while the broader reforms are being undertaken. We are seeking powers in the Bill to complement existing powers to make regulations for transitional arrangements when such scenarios occur, similar to how responsibility for a local plan can transfer when a local authority becomes a unitary authority. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendment 122, which seeks to add provision for infrastructure delivery plans and funding to the list of matters in proposed new section 12C(3) to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the Secretary of State may consider, including in regulations establishing a strategic planning board. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that that list is not exhaustive. Indeed, proposed new section 12C(2) is clear:
“Strategic planning board regulations may make provision about…such…matters as the Secretary of State considers are necessary or expedient to facilitate the exercise by a strategic planning board of its functions”.
In general terms, the Government are clear that new development must come with the appropriate social and physical infrastructure and amenities for new communities to thrive. The hon. Member for Broxbourne challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, saying that there are not provisions in the Bill directly relating to things like infrastructure delivery plans. That is right, but the Bill is not the sum total of the action the Government are taking in housing and planning. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we are talking action in other areas. However, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage directly, it is not the Government’s intention for strategic planning boards or any other strategic planning authority to be required to produce an infrastructure delivery plan, although I am more than happy to pick up the wider discussion about infrastructure with him outside the Committee.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position and commitment to infrastructure delivery alongside housing. Will he comment specifically on infrastructure that allows people to get on a train and go to work? Does he agree that transport infrastructure is critical and that we must not build homes in the middle of nowhere, which condemn people to poverty? The ability of people to connect to places by getting on a train or a bus to go to work and earn a decent wage, and then to get back home, is crucial for an economy that works for everyone.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As we know, done properly, transport infrastructure and effective interventions in that regard can unlock huge numbers of homes. As I said, the Government have already taken action to support the provision of infrastructure, for example in the changes to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and we are looking at what more can be done, but it is not necessary for the clause to introduce that.
I will make a final point about how IDPs work now. IDPs are put in place where local authorities decide to take them forward, on the basis that they support the delivery of a local development plan. Local development plans have to be in general conformity with spatial development strategies. There is a clear link here, even though we are not asking strategic planning boards to have responsibility for bringing forward IDPs in the way that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggests. I hope that I have given him some reassurance and, on that basis, that he will agree that amendment 122 is not necessary. I also request that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley withdraws his amendment 76.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the spirit in which, as usual, the Minister comes back. I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I would appreciate some further conversations and some reassurance on how, in the reform of local government, we do not add an undue burden on local authorities.
The hon. Member for Barking made an astute point, as usual, approaching this topic with her experience: we must absolutely make sure that where development happens, whether in rural areas or areas in the middle of nowhere—although I presume that that would be rural too—the infrastructure also comes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, nowhere is that stated in the legislation.
The Minister is a man of integrity and I take what he says as such. I know that his aims and ambitions are to make sure that there are further plans with an infrastructure-first approach, but given the Bill at the moment, as well as the reforms and changes to the NPPF, the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking will simply not be met under this legislative agenda. Indeed, some of the housing targets and reforms brought in by this Government have placed an overwhelming burden on rural areas, rather than on urban areas where the infrastructure is already in place and easier to develop.
We look forward to challenging and scrutinising the Minister in future stages of the Bill. We also await with anticipation proposed future legislation that he will bring forward on infrastructure—
Paul Holmes
Not legislation, sorry. Forgive me. We are good mates—well, I think we are—so I must resist the temptation to talk across the aisle. On that basis, we look forward to what the Minister will say. We will scrutinise the measures on infrastructure that he may bring forward, and we will not press the amendment to a vote.
Olly Glover
Briefly, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for his empathy with and understanding of the point that we sought to make about infrastructure supporting housing. I am very grateful for his offer to discuss the wider problem at a future stage. On that basis, I am content not to move amendment 122.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 47, page 65, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 82, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
New clause 104—Protection of Green Belt land—
“For the purposes of protecting Green Belt land, local planning authorities must—
(a) within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of existing areas of Green Belt land and;
(b) for areas designated as Green Belt land under the review, prevent any development for a minimum period of 20 years.”
Paul Holmes
The amendments stand in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner or, in the case of amendment 82, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—I cannot remember his constituency name, but he is listed on the amendment paper. Like the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I am learning on the job—
Paul Holmes
I appreciate your forbearance, Dr Huq.
The amendment and the others tabled by Conservative Members relate to a brownfield-first approach. Our concern with the measures in the legislation as drafted, and with the actions of the Government so far, is that the green belt at the moment is under threat. Specifically, with amendment 72, we want to ensure that land that has previously been developed should be considered for development ahead of other categories of land. That will reduce pressure to build on undeveloped greenfield land, helping to protect natural habitats, agricultural land and green belt.
In addition, we believe that such developments can regenerate neglected or derelict urban areas, improving the local environment, attracting investment and jobs, and helping residents. That is not to mention that putting brownfield sites first may benefit from existing infrastructure such as roads, public transport and water power, reducing the need for costly new developments, and making services more efficient. Essentially, we are saying to the Minister that we want spatial development to have a brownfield-first and an existing development-first approach, and a basic assumption within those guidelines.
With amendment 75, we want essentially to allow development on green-belt land only where urban development is not possible. Already we have seen in the last couple of weeks the Mayor of London, for example—despite assurances from this Government that the green belt would be safe—proposing to put something forward around the M25 on green-belt land. I know the Minister cannot comment on live planning or on the decision made by the Secretary of State this week, but there are other examples where we are seeing an encroachment on to the green belt. The Government have given assurances that the green belt would not be under threat, but we can see that some measures in the spatial development strategies and the existing powers being given to Ministers and the Secretary of State do not provide overwhelming safeguards to the green belt across the UK.
The amendment is a perfectly practicable step to make sure that ,where we have previously developed land and brownfield sites, there is a basic assumption that that is where buildings should go first, for all the reasons I set out. We also think that restricting development on green-belt land, and allowing it only where urban development is not possible, helps to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and ensures that the natural landscape, farmland and biodiversity are preserved for future generations.
We also argue that it encourages a more efficient use of previously developed brownfield sites, as I said, within towns and cities, supporting urban regeneration and reducing the environmental impact of new construction. I think that slightly matches the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking: by focusing growth within existing urban areas, this approach also makes better use of existing infrastructure and public services, helps to maintain clear boundaries between towns and rural areas, and supports sustainable patterns of development that are less car dependent and more community focused.
Amendment 82 would require that a spatial development strategy consider the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects on agricultural land. Notwithstanding what I said about the protection of the green belt, previous actions, particularly by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, show an eradication of, and an easier approach to developing on, agricultural land. The position we have long held on that, which I know the Minister may not agree with, is that in this world of uncertainty, agricultural land should be protected. Food security is of absolute importance when we have seen food prices go up in the country because of international uncertainty.
By requiring a spatial development strategy to consider both the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects such as the ones I described, the amendment would help to safeguard the UK’s long-term food security. High-grade agricultural land is a finite and valuable resource—I think everyone on the Committee would agree with that—and it is essential for domestic food production. Factoring in its quality ensures that development prioritises lower-value land where possible, reducing the loss of productive farm land. Additionally, considering the cumulative impact of multiple developments helps to prevent gradual, piecemeal erosion of agricultural capacity, which might otherwise go unnoticed in individual planning decisions. This approach promotes a more balanced and informed strategy that protects rural economies, biodiversity and the resilience of the agricultural sector.
I hope the Minister takes the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to protect. They are not political amendments, but genuine attempts to probe the Minister to see whether he could bring in some additional protections—despite previous actions on the green belt—and look to strengthen the legislation to protect agricultural land, which I know he will agree is so important at this time for our domestic food production. The Government have been positive, and I welcome the food strategy announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We support that, and we absolutely agree with the aspiration.
We need a food strategy in this country—before the Minister stands up and says that the last Government did not do enough on that, let me say that I think that is a fair challenge. That is why we welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement at the beginning of this Government, but that has to be matched by the legislative actions being taken in other areas of Government, which is why we have tabled these amendments.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 104, which relates to green belt protection. We recognise that the Government’s proposals are set out in the national planning policy framework. We do not support the way in which the standard method is being imposed on local authorities, nor do we support the way in which green belt release will be forced on local authorities through the requirement that they review and effectively release land for green belt. However, among the rules that the Government have put forward, we sympathise with the strictures they have come up with for the release of green-belt land where local authorities decide to do that, which should support higher levels of social housing.
Our new clause would require a quid pro quo for the release of green-belt land, which clearly will happen—it must happen, because it has been required and dictated in an NPPF. Local areas want to see proper protection for their green-belt land. Indeed, many areas would like to have a green belt, but it is extremely difficult for areas that have not historically had green belt to introduce it, such that there are hardly any areas where that has ever happened.
There is therefore an inequity in terms of protecting land. Greenfield land can be just as valuable and important in Taunton, where we have green wedges stretching into the centre of town, as it is in and around London, where there is official green belt protection. Our new clause would provide for local authorities to carry out a review of the green belt and then to protect that land from development for 20 years. That semi-permanent protection would be a quid pro quo for the loss of green-belt land that many authorities will see under the NPPF.
It gives people a real sense of the planning system’s failures when they have believed for years and years that a piece of land near them is protected green belt, but then they attend the planning committee or some meeting, and a planner—possibly like myself in the past—comes up and says, “Oh, no, no. It’s not actually protected any more. It’s not got long-term protection; that protection didn’t mean anything,” and it is wafted away. Communities want to know how their most precious areas of green land will be protected. Our amendment seeks to provide them with a mechanism to establish green belt protection for at least 20 years.
Nesil Caliskan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I would like to make a couple of points about the green belt, not least because I would like to address the direct comments from the shadow Minister.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not expect him to have followed my very short career to date or my position on the green belt, but just for the record, my long-standing position has been to identify appropriate areas on the green belt, particularly in London, where we have a housing crisis, that can be built on. The truth is that there are many areas of the green belt—areas that could, indeed, be described as grey belt—that already have some kind of development, perhaps without planning permission, or where enforcement is needed, that are entirely appropriate for housing development, and many of those areas are already well connected.
In my constituency, a new train station has been built in the Barking Riverside area in recent years. It is not green belt, but it is strategic industrial land. In our discussions about well-connected neighbourhoods, we often forget the pressure on strategic industrial land, too. That is a good example of where infrastructure was delivered and houses have followed. The rest of the country can follow that example.
On the point about urban areas needing to be the priority for development, of course, we have to see urban development intensify in housing delivery, but many of our urban areas already have high density, and overcrowding is a familiar picture. It is simply not possible to deliver the housing numbers we need by looking only at urban areas. I often hear the argument that it should be brownfield sites first. Of course, they should be first, but if people think there is a secret drawer full of brownfield sites that will deliver the housing numbers we need in this country, they are out of touch with the housing pressures facing our communities.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is right that I have not followed the minutiae of her career, but I know from her comments in the Chamber and this Committee that she has an expertise that we should all listen to, even if we disagree. She led a council for a good while, so I know that she is an expert in these areas.
She outlined in her comments that urban areas should have a higher rate of delivery because they are of higher densities. Why is it, then, that on the Floor of the House, that is not matched by what she is voting for? Housing targets under the new algorithm in her area and her constituency are being reduced, while in rural areas, where she is concerned about the lack of infrastructure, they are being increased exponentially. How does she defend that, with what she has just said?
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to make two points. First, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will allow the Government to spearhead infrastructure delivery in this country in rural areas that do not have the necessary infrastructure. That is why the Bill is so important. With the necessary infrastructure, we will be able to see the delivery of homes not just in urban areas. Secondly, to the point about housing delivery in Barking and Dagenham, the area has some of the most impressive stats for house building in London and the rest of the country. It has been delivering housing at a much better rate than areas not just in London, but in the rest of the country.
My final point is about the threat to the green belt, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned. The biggest threat to the green belt is not having a strategic approach to planning in this country. If we take the absence of local plans in areas, as it stands, the legal framework means that if a planner says no to a planning application, and there is no up-to-date local plan, then on appeal, the appeal process can enforce such that the development happens in the green belt anyway. We need a strategic approach across the country that not only encourages or, in fact, forces local authorities to have up-to-date local plans, but ensures that house building—alongside infrastructure, which I firmly believe the Bill will help to deliver—is fair in its approach to delivering homes.
We cannot just build in urban areas. We do not have that capacity. It is unfair for those who are already living in overcrowded accommodation. People deserve to have access to open and green spaces, and our rural communities deserve to have the infrastructure necessary for well-connected neighbourhoods. I firmly believe that the Bill supports that, and that the debate around green belt and access is more nuanced than some Opposition Members have set out.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise in support of amendments 72, 75 and 82. I await with anticipation what the Minister will say, because surely we can all agree that green belt should be protected and that we should do brownfield first. Sometimes, under the current planning system, green-belt land gets developed on through the back door.
Even if a council has an up-to-date local plan, there can be issues if it does not meet its five-year land supply or housing targets in terms of its build-out rates, which the council has very little control over. The council has control over the speed and determination of planning applications. However, it can approve all the applications it wants—it could approve thousands—but if the developer or developers are not building them, the council then gets punished. Someone else will come along and say, “I want to develop on this piece of green-belt land,” and when that goes to appeal, the Planning Inspectorate will say to the council, “You haven’t got a five-year land supply, and you’re not meeting your build-out rate targets.” It is the community and the council that get punished for developers not building what they have been given approval to build.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In relation to previous comments that have been made about building on green belt through the back door, does he agree that these amendments strengthen the case for some of those councils? The current planning appeals system takes into regard national guidelines and national legislation, and these amendments provide a safeguard to stop some of those things happening.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt.
I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door.
The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for these amendments. I hope I can give them some reassurance that none of them is necessary from the Government’s point of view.
I turn first to amendments 72, 75 and 82, tabled by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. These amendments relate to developments taking place on green-belt, brownfield and agricultural land resulting from the introduction of spatial development strategies. While I understand the positive intent behind the amendments in seeking to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect valuable land from development, they are not necessary, as current national policy already achieves the intended aims.
On amendment 72, I fully agree that we must make the best use possible of brownfield land for development. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield-first approach to development. That is recognised in national planning policy. We made changes in the recent national planning policy framework update to expand the definition of “previously developed land” and reinforce the expectation that development proposals on such land within settlements should normally be approved.
We are also consulting on our working paper on a brownfield passport, which we are considering through the introduction of national development management policies, as provided for by the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The aim of those proposals we are seeking feedback on—lots of feedback has been gratefully received—is to ensure that we prioritise and accelerate the development of previously developed land wherever possible. We are very firm on our brownfield-first approach.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the Minister says; there is a recognition across Government, demonstrated by some of the actions they have taken, that they have a brownfield-first approach. I simply ask him: what has he got to fear from an amendment that would back that up and ensure that that goes out into the community, strengthening his Government’s position?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that challenge. On this whole group of amendments, whether they have been tabled on the basis of a misunderstanding of spatial development strategies or Members have just taken the opportunity—I completely appreciate why—to initiate wider debates on the Government’s national planning policy, I will address why I do not think they are necessary.
The Government are in absolute agreement on the point made about brownfield first. In a sense, we want the default answer for planning permissions on brownfield to be yes, unless circumstances necessitate otherwise. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made a very good point about build-out, which I addressed yesterday. The Government are looking to take action on build-out, not least with the introduction of the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to incentivise the prompt build-out of housing sites, and we are looking to bring those forward in fairly short order.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has just said that he wants a default yes on brownfield sites. Is he concerned that if we give carte blanche to developers and say, “You can build whatever you want on brownfield sites,” some of that development on brownfield sites will not be of the quality that I am sure we both want?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not concerned, for the reasons set out in the “Brownfield Passport” working paper, which I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go away and read, if he has not had the chance to do so already. In a sense, we are looking at a set of proposals, and again I emphasise that we have asked for feedback on them and we are considering how that feedback maps on to how we take forward this approach through national development management policies. In effect, we are saying that there is a presumption that the answer to applications on brownfield land is yes, but it has to meet certain criteria and conditions. The various options that we have explored are set out in that note, but it would absolutely not be a free-for-all on brownfield land, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I do not agree that amendment 72 is necessary to achieve the important objective that it raises because, while spatial development strategies will provide for a high-level framework for infrastructure investment for housing growth, they will not allocate specific sites. Strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategy is consistent with national policy. National planning policy, as I have said, already provides strong support for brownfield development, and it is clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call.
It is also clear that authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies, and those national policies are clear, as I have argued. I therefore ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies consider other practical options before identifying infrastructure or the distribution of housing within the green belt. To be clear, spatial development strategies cannot allocate land for development. This is a really important point: they can identify broad locations for new development, if the participating members wish to take those forward, and that may include land within the green belt. However, the formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans and neighbourhood plans.
I am in full agreement that it is crucial to take a brownfield-first approach to development, as I have said, in which the reuse of previously developed land and options to increase density are given priority. I can assure Opposition Members that, when any such green belt review takes place, existing planning policy in relation to the reuse of green belt will still apply. The NPPF makes it clear that, when plans are considering the release of green-belt land, they must demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs, including making use of brownfield land and optimising the density of developments. This is a point that I have made on several other occasions: there is a sequential approach to plan making to green-belt release, and it is very clearly set out what the Government intend in that regard.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My apologies, Dr Huq, for my late arrival to the Committee. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, for moving the amendment, which stands in my name. I seek a more detailed assurance from the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to comment on the specifics of individual cases, but yesterday I raised something that is very pertinent: the decision of the Secretary of State on the Abbots Langley development.
It was a longstanding principle of the approach to green belt that, where there were hard boundaries such as motorways, rivers and railway lines, the preservation of green space between them and adjoining settlements was very important, because it creates a green boundary and some additional space to reduce air pollution. The Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the national planning policy framework 2025 is effectively to redesignate all such land as grey belt. Areas that our constituents clearly understood were directly protected and were in the green belt have effectively, at the stroke of a pen, been redesignated as grey belt and eligible for development. That is why these amendments are so important. We need to guarantee that those vital green spaces, which provide a bit of a cushion between hard infrastructure and people’s residences, will be preserved and protected. Without commenting on that specific case, will the Minister address the legitimate concerns raised by that decision?
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.
The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.
I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.
I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.
The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.
When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.
In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.
New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.
However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.
High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.
The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.
Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Paul Holmes
As always, I appreciate the Minister’s very detailed response. However, we tabled these amendments to set a precedent. We welcome the Minister’s clear words about how there is an anticipation and a want from the Government’s policy agenda, particularly through the NPPF, for a brownfield-first strategy. He therefore has nothing to fear from allowing some of these new spatial development strategy boards to have that precedence underlying how they are acting and operating.
The Minister is absolutely right that those boards do not allocate sites, but there is an argument to be made about where those boards, in their constitution through the national legislation that is being set up, are guided by precedence that is overwhelmingly backed, as he clearly said, by other legislation and guidance from his Department. He therefore has nothing to fear from amendments 72 and 75.
On amendment 82, I completely understand the Minister’s point. It would be churlish for any politician to stand up and say there should be absolutely no development on agricultural land. That is a fair challenge, and that is not what the amendment’s parameters seek to establish. He was right that development will be needed on such sites on occasions, but again, the amendment would clearly set out that the most valuable productive agricultural land—not in terms of financial value—would have precedence in the guidelines of these new boards.
Again, the Minister should not fear the intentions of the amendment. He clearly set out that he agrees—much more than I thought he would—with some of the aims and aspirations behind the amendments. Apparently, his Government agree with those intentions and will cover them through other means. He should not fear the amendments. I politely ask him to accept them, although I know that he will not change his mind.
Paul Holmes
That does not mean to say that once they are reviewed again after 20 years, those sites might not be allocated, but that is the choice of the local authority and the local people that are leading that piece of work.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that he would have our support for new clause 104 if he decided to press it to a Division. However, there is a clear precedent and reason why we have tabled our three amendments. I say to the Minister that we must go for a brownfield-first approach, with an acceptance that we must protect green-belt land when urban development is not possible. We must also protect the most valuable and productive agricultural land in the country through the planning system and Government regulation. We intend to press amendments 72, 75 and 82 to a vote. I hope that the Liberal Democrats also press theirs to a vote.
Gideon Amos
I rise simply to confirm that we will press new clause 104 to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief because I can see that the hon. Members opposite are intent on pressing the amendments to a vote. I have a couple of things to say, at risk of eroding the fondness that hon. Members opposite have expressed for me in recent days. That is troubling, but I will continue none the less.
What can I gently say to the shadow Minister? I think he must have forgotten—because I am sure he has not overlooked it—that it is not the case that the Government have been converted to the Opposition’s view on the subject. From day one, we have been clear about the stipulations in terms of a brownfield-first approach, and the approach to green-belt release that I have outlined. They were clear in the NPPF changes, and they remain the case. I gently challenge the hon. Members by asking them to think again.
SDSs are intended to be high-level plans for housing growth and the allocation of infrastructure investment. They are not big local plans; they do not need to do everything in national planning policy. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is that we transcribe all national planning policy into SDSs and have requirements. The requirements are already there, they apply, and regard will need to be given to them in the development and production of SDSs. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I humbly ask hon. Members to give a final thought about whether we need a Division.
David Simmonds
Again, at the risk of a political love-in taking place, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all of the debates extremely courteously, and he has responded in detail. However, there is a genuine point of principle. I gently respond to him on a point that I raised earlier. We have had a lot of assurances that there is a shared direction of travel around the protection of the green belt.
However, the first significant decision that has been taken by the Secretary of State, in line with the planning practice guidance from February 2025, has driven a coach and horses through the expectations that were set about how that protection will operate. I think that that has stiffened the resolve on this side, so that we are now saying that we need to press the issue, because it is clear that whatever undertakings appear to be made, the reality is that decisions to develop on the green belt, in places that constituents reasonably expect to be protected, are being taken. Therefore, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, we secure those protections in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.
The Chair
No, because the debate was now, but the votes on amendments 75 and 82 and new clause 104 will come later.
The Chair
This afternoon, probably, after lunch. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] They are in that sequence on the amendment paper.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)
I know we vote on new clause 104 later. But will we vote on amendments 75 and 82 now?
The Chair
If you look at your amendment paper, page 7 has got amendment 75, but we are only on page 2 now.
Gen Kitchen
Is it not that they are grouped together, so we vote on them as a group?
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Huq. I am not questioning the Clerk, who has been fantastic, or you as Chair, but I simply do not understand. It may be that I am being thick and stupid. All week we have had votes on the amendment paper listed by grouping, which I have been following. We have votes on amendments in the order they have appeared in the selection list.
I understand that new clauses are slightly different, but the precedent from the previous sessions is that we have voted on Opposition and other amendments tabled in the order they appear in the groupings. Can you explain why, on this occasion, we have voted on Opposition amendment 72, but amendments 75 and 82 come later? I am not challenging your decision; I am just seeking your clarification.
The Chair
The Clerk will talk to you afterwards. We want to go to Prime Minister’s Question Time—there are Members in the Committee Room who have questions at PMQs. As I said, amendment 122 was another example of an amendment where the debate and the vote were separate—I said that it had been previously debated.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 47, page 65, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to provide 150,000 social homes nationally a year.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert
“; (c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area, when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) “urban area” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, “social rent housing” has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Gideon Amos
Amendment 29 would give effect to the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 new social homes per year by introducing such a requirement into spatial development strategies. It is a commitment set out in our manifesto, alongside a funding commitment of £6 billion per annum of capital investment—above current levels of affordable housing programme spending—to get to that level of provision over the course of a Parliament.
In contrast, the Government’s commitment of £2 billion in affordable housing programme funding for 2026-27, for up to 18,000 homes, is welcome but, in our view, does not go far enough. For too many people, a decent home has crept out of reach. The National Housing Federation and Shelter both make it clear that at least 90,000 new social homes are needed per year, given the loss of 20,500 social homes in 2023-24. According to the New Economics Foundation, 2 million council and social rent homes have been lost to right to buy since the 1980s, but only 4% of those have been replaced—a massive sell-off, leaving far too many people out in the cold when it comes to their housing aspirations.
A bath cannot be filled if the plug has been taken out. We need to end the current system of right to buy and allow councils the power to do so. As the University of Glasgow has shown, the building of private homes—even at the rates the Government advocate—will not mean any significant reduction in house prices. We should not rely on the private sector to build those low-rent and social rent homes we need. Private sector homes are built for profit. We need private market housing, and we have consented to thousands of new homes in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. However, those homes will never be released on to the market at a rate that will diminish prices or bring rents down to the levels that most people can afford. For all those reasons, we need to build 150,000 social rent homes per year, and that is the target that this amendment seeks to install into spatial environment strategies.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?
Ellie Chowns
Marvellous! These amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I speak to them as probing amendments. Amendment 17
“requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.”
In our previous debate, we discussed questions of housing density. This amendment would help ensure land is used as effectively and efficiently as possible and prevent urban sprawl by encouraging strategic planning strategies to specify the optimal level of housing densities. It is not about specifying particular levels of housing densities but making sure that, in the preparation of strategic plans, adequate attention is given to the question of housing density.
That has a couple of benefits. First, it prevents unnecessary encroachment on green spaces, which, as I think we all agree, are so important—not just for nature protection but human wellbeing. It is also about ensuring that developments themselves have the life they need to succeed. The hon. Member for Barking made the point about the facilities, size and density of communities being at the critical mass to generate liveable communities. That means enough people to provide transport infrastructure and services, for example.
That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 94 is concerned with the definition of affordable housing in clause 47, and suggests that, for the purposes of the clause, “affordable housing” should be considered to mean “social rent housing.” In our debate yesterday, it was pointed out that so-called affordable housing should be done only with air quotes around it, because so often it is not anywhere close to being affordable. We have, however, already set out in existing legislation and guidance what social rent housing means.
The reality is that in our housing market, social rented housing is the most affordable form of housing by far. In the context of a housing crisis and an increasingly and incredibly unequal housing market, it is crucial that when we set strategic plans to create affordable housing, that housing must be genuinely affordable. That has to mean social rent. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover
I shall keep my remarks brief, because we had a rich discussion during yesterday afternoon’s session about the need for social and affordable housing. I wish to say a few words in support of amendment 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would stipulate within a spatial development strategy the need to provide 150,000 new social homes a year nationally. It is notable that all members of the Committee made clear their support for social and affordable housing, but we had a very valid debate yesterday about how to get there.
As per the evidence I gave from my constituency, and as is the case in many others, it has become clear that leaving it to the market and hoping that that leads to sufficient affordable and social housing is not an approach that has hitherto succeeded. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore very much support mandating targets and far more social homes as part of the mix, rather than just hoping it happens organically via developers and local council regulation.
Paul Holmes
On a point of process, Dr Huq, I wish to move amendments 73 and 74. Do I speak to them now and move them formally?
Paul Holmes
Okay, I just wanted to double check. The Opposition have tabled amendments 73 and 74 to limit increases and decreases in the allocation of housing targets when being assessed by spatial development strategies. The Minister should not be surprised by this approach. We have been very clear from the beginning that we disagree fundamentally with how the Minister and the Secretary of State have decided to assess housing targets and algorithms since they took office last July.
We fundamentally disagree with what we think is a politically gerrymandering housing algorithm, as we can quite clearly see through the evidence. We believe that in the rural areas where there is a lack of infrastructure—notwithstanding that we agree that infrastructure needs to be built, although, as the Minister has said, there is no actual mechanism in the legislation to insist on an infrastructure-first approach—the housing targets outlined by the Government are political gerrymandering. In very rural areas, housing targets can sometimes be doubled, tripled or quadrupled, but in urban centres and particularly in cities, those housing targets have been reduced.
We have tabled our amendments because we believe there needs to be some guidance on spatial development strategies. There should be national guidance and regulation for the Government’s approach to housing allocation: on how much they should be allowed to uplift, but also on how much that they can decrease, particularly in the amount of housing they can deliver in urban areas.
There is precedent for why we have done this. If we take my constituency of Hamble Valley as an example, there are two local authority areas. Under the Minister’s proposals, Fareham borough council has gone from a yearly housing target of 470 houses to one of more than 800. Eastleigh borough council, which is already over-delivering on its annual housing targets, currently has a target of around 623. They are building 1,200 homes a year themselves because of their debt levels, which is clearly a massive overreach and increase in an area that does not have the necessary infrastructure. The doubling of that requirement for house building, including on junction 7 of the M27—I do not expect the Minister to know the geography—is leading to huge amounts of bad effects with increased traffic because of the lack of infrastructure delivered alongside the housing targets.
If the Minister looks at neighbouring Southampton city council, which is controlled by the Labour party and has delivered only 200 homes a year, whether they are affordable or for private purchase, its targets have been reduced from 1,200 a year to 1,000 a year. That is the same in nearly every urban authority that the Minister has put forward—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but if he looks at the evidence from the House of Commons Library, housing targets in urban council-centred areas are generally being reduced. It is happening in Southampton, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking—her targets have gone down.
Need I remind the Minister that it is also happening in London? The Government’s targets in London are being reduced, while the mayor has announced just this week that he wants to build on the green belt. If he is so keen to build, he should be looking at the densification of his city. He should be looking to build on brownfield sites first, as we have just discussed, and he should not be given political cover for failure by a Minister and a Secretary of State who are reducing housing targets in predominantly Labour council areas in urban cities.
That is an argument that we have rehearsed before. I know the Minister will come back and say that he disagrees, and I expect him to do that, because he is defending his algorithm, but he cannot defend it to the people in this country. It is a politically gerrymandering algorithm that damages. It targets the failure of predominantly Labour councils in urban areas, and targets the success of predominantly rural authorities that struggle, and it punishes them. Those are the areas that have challenges that urban areas do not have in trying to match those housing targets.
We have tabled amendment 74 in such detail—to ensure that there cannot be an increase in the number of homes in any strategy area of more than 20%, or a reduction of the required number of homes in urban areas by more than 20%—to try to mitigate some of those politically motivated measures that the Government have undertaken in other areas through the national planning policy framework. That is why we are putting forward these amendments.
We have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister over the housing algorithm. He knows that we have a fundamental disagreement over housing targets and the way in which they deliver them, because we think that, where there are hugely increased housing targets, that places a burden on local authorities. The algorithm also reduces the quality of housing provided, because there is a rush to try to meet housing targets for fear of Government repercussions, but the quality of builds, the quality of the developments and the associated infrastructure and community investment goes down. Believe me, I have seen that in my local authority, and I invite the Minister to attend my constituency at any time he wants. On its boundaries, Eastleigh borough council has been building double the number of homes that are required. The financial decisions that it has made mean that the quality of development has gone down and resentment among the public has gone up. The infrastructure that has not been delivered means that people in my local area—and areas across the locality in Hampshire, just outside my constituency—suffer.
So I say to the Minister: that is why we are tabling these amendments. I know that he is going to come back to me very strongly—
Paul Holmes
Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.
I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. May I seek your guidance? My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, the shadow Minister, has spoken to two amendments tabled in my name, which we intend to push to a vote. It is a departure from Committee procedure to vote on one amendment but not on the others, when a vote has been expected, and to set them aside. When, in the Committee proceedings, will we return to the amendments discussed earlier to vote on them?
The Chair
It goes according to the sequence in the amendment paper. At the moment we are at amendment 29, on page 3 of the amendment paper. When will we reach amendment 73, on page 5? How long is a piece of a string? We intend to reach it today, but perhaps not before the sitting is adjourned at 11.25. This was all decided in a Programming Sub-Committee at the beginning of our Committee proceedings; someone put matters in this order.
Gen Kitchen
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. Opposition Members are very interested in their amendments, but I am keenly and acutely interested in Government amendment 48 and schedule 3. Government amendment 48 is on page 10 of the amendment paper. We have been going through the groupings of amendments on the selection list, and in previous sittings, when we have voted on amendments, we have voted on the groupings, rather than following the amendment paper. I am concerned that if we are now following the amendment paper, we should have voted today on amendments 5, 21, 22, 76, 122, 4 and 72.
Gen Kitchen
So therefore we have been going through the groupings, rather than the amendment paper.
The Chair
The learned Clerk tells me that he can ventriloquise an explanation but it would be easier for him to explain after the sitting is adjourned.
Gideon Amos
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I echo the comments of other members of the Committee. We have so far followed the groupings on the selection list, and within each group we have voted on each amendment that has been pushed to a vote. New clauses may be a different matter, but that is what has happened in the Committee to date.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I do not wish to exacerbate the conversation, but the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden, is correct, and I am concerned that if we entertain the new way of working, even though it may be challenged, that we will lose the efficiency and rhythm that this Committee has had.
I am open to challenge by the Clerk, but in previous sittings we have followed the groupings on the selection list, which has meant that we were prepared—though of course we are always prepared—and know the sequence that we are following. That was so for the whole of the Committee proceedings. This approach, following the amendment paper, has not been in action for the previous sittings of the Committee. I wholly endorse the comments made by the Government Whip. I believe that, if we could follow the groupings and vote on the amendments in order, as we take them, that would assist the Committee in getting through the process, and business of the day.
The Chair
I have been on these Committees for 10 years, and chaired them for the last five years, and as far as I understand, this is the way we always do it. We often say a measure “was debated earlier”. It just seems to be coincidence that the decisions fell as they did yesterday—or whenever it was. This is, I have been told, non-negotiable.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I return to the question: can you indicate when in the Committee proceedings we will return to vote on those amendments?
The Chair
That depends on how succinct or verbose people are. I am not Mystic Meg. The Committee will decide on those amendments whenever it gets to them in the amendment paper.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I know you want to discuss this matter with the Clerk after the sitting adjourns. I wholly welcome that. Perhaps we should all attend, so that we can learn. It must be the case, Dr Huq, that you can give us an indication. I get the point about the verbosity and speed of colleagues on the Committee, but it would benefit Committee members if we knew whether we will vote on the various amendments that we have tabled at the end of the discussion of clause 47, or whether those votes could come at a later stage, after the discussion of the clause. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking that guidance and would appreciate a general steer.
The Chair
These things are often negotiated by the two Whips: they make it happen at a certain time. Any vote on amendment 73 will come after the debate on amendment 88—that will be today—and amendment 74 will come after that.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. The groupings have been negotiated by the Whips. The Chair’s selection of amendments is in that order, and votes have followed that process.
The Chair
The Clerk helpfully suggests that we could suspend the sitting to give members a primer on this matter.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a delight to serve under your chairship. Listeners to the debate have missed out on an entertaining discussion of the procedure of voting on amendments and clauses. I rise to comment briefly to amendment 29.
I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches disagrees with the notion that we need to build more genuinely affordable homes and social rent homes, but I do not think that the amendment fully accounts for the cost of 150,000 additional social homes. A generously low grant rate for a social home is around £183,000 a year, and that would be just over 30,000 homes a year, so there is a significant gap between what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington proposes and what can be afforded through the amount of money that is being suggested.
I also gently remind Opposition Members that the largest cut to the affordable homes budget occurred in 2010, under the coalition Government. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and I have debated that previously. That was a 66% cut in the affordable homes budget, and we would not be in this situation had such a significant cut not been enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendments 29, 73, 17, 74 and 94 would introduce additional requirements for spatial development strategies in relation to housing. They seek to specify or describe what spatial development strategies must include across a range of areas, such as housing target limits, affordable housing definitions and housing density requirements.
I thank hon. Members for their interest in the Bill’s spatial development strategy provisions. However, the Government believe that these amendments are not productive in achieving the Bill’s objectives. I will attempt to be succinct rather than verbose, given the time we have lost and the need to make progress on the Bill. In general terms, we think that introducing further requirements for SDSs would limit their effectiveness and operability, as well as the purpose and effect that the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 29, moved by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would make specific provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the provision for new social rented homes. The Government are clearly committed to delivering more social housing, and I hope the Committee recognises the steps that we have taken over the past 10 months, including an £800 million in-year funding top-up to the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme; £2 billion of bridging support—I think the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in referring to it as £2 million—that will bring forward up to 18,000 new social homes; and in the multi-year spending review, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. In that, we are looking to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes, which is a Government priority.
Proposed new section 12D(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes provision for a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of affordable housing, or any other kind of housing that the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. SDSs can therefore already play an important role in the delivery of social and affordable housing, if the strategic authority in question considers it necessary. Amendment 29 is therefore not necessary, and I request that the hon. Member withdraws it.
The shadow Minister tempted me into a much wider debate on the Government’s revised standard method for assessing housing need, which was introduced in the updated NPPF late last year. I will not go into too much detail, but the point of difference is that, under the previous Government, a 35% urban uplift was applied to the most populous local planning authority within the country’s 20 largest cities and urban centres. We have removed that urban uplift.
Matthew Pennycook
Because it was a completely arbitrary number that bore no relation to objectively assessed housing need. We have replaced it with a standard method and with targets under which city regions, as a whole, will see their targets increase by 20%, on average, compared with the previous planning period. We have increased targets across those city regions, and the new method directs housing growth to a wider range of urban centres across England. We have introduced a more ambitious, credible and objective method of assessing housing need in any given area.
On average, that gives rise to a 20% increase in city regions. The previous Government said that the 35% urban uplift applied not to London’s most populous local authority but to the whole of London, which is out of kilter with all the other arrangements that they made across the country. That left London with a fantastical target that was impossible to deliver. We have rightly revised down the target, but the shadow Minister will know that we are being very clear that London needs to increase delivery quite significantly. The Mayor has taken steps in recent days to ensure that happens.
Amendments 73 and 74 would apply limitations to the extent that spatial development strategies can redistribute housing requirements over a strategy area. The distribution of housing requirements is likely to be a key role for most, if not all, spatial development strategies. It would be overly prescriptive to apply an arbitrary restraint on the ability to decide the most appropriate location for new housing. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, in many of the debates I attend, this is what their parties call for: a smarter and more strategic way for local authorities in sub-regional groups to come together and select locations for housing growth that help to absorb some of their housing target numbers in a more sensible way, where that is applicable. We do not want to be prescriptive and constrain their ability to do so in whatever way works for the sub-region in question.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Basingstoke invited me to go down memory lane to what was happening in 2009, 2010 and so on. I am happy to do so. The Liberal Democrats went into coalition at that point. They were 9% of the Members of Parliament, but prevented a great deal of the worst excesses of the Conservative Government over that time, and continue to stand by that achievement. In fact, there was a 25% increase in affordable housing starts based on £15 billion of additional funding on affordable social housing under the coalition. In contrast, in 2009, a Labour Chancellor proposed cuts in the pre-Budget papers that he called “deeper and tougher” than anything Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s, and began a £22 billion cut in capital expenditure, which was greater than the—
Gideon Amos
I will not give way. I need to get back to the present day, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is important to dwell not on the proposed cuts of £22 billion to capital expenditure from 2009-10 onwards that the outgoing Labour Government were proposing, but on the reality of the situation that faces people who need social homes today. That is what amendment 29 is all about.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested that the amount required per social home is £183,000. Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that that is actually £131,000 a home. I do not doubt his sincerity in looking at the costs of each social home, but those are our figures. Against that, our proposed investment of £6 billion would be on top of the existing affordable homes programme of £2.3 billion.
In passing, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we recognise and respect the £2 billion investment that the Government have put into the affordable housing programme for up to 18,000 affordable homes. It is worthwhile. Our amendment simply asks the Government to go further and faster. Our commitment of £6 billion per year in our suggested budget—funded by the taxation proposals we set out there—added to the £2.3 billion of the existing affordable homes programme, would be sufficient to get us to a delivery level of 150,000 social homes per year in the course of a Parliament, according to figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
Our proposals are therefore founded on some consideration of the financial costs involved and of the priority that the Government need to give to the delivery of social homes. I reiterate simply that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, relying on the private sector to provide low-cost social housing or even to bring down the price of housing has not worked to date and is extremely unlikely, to say the least, to happen in future.
Matthew Pennycook
An important point to make is that, through the revised standard method for assessing housing need and the housing targets that flow from that, we are asking local authorities to do more to meet the housing crisis. We expect more social and affordable homes to come through under section 106 agreements.
I take issue, gently, with the assertion that I think is implicit in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman: that we are just leaving everything to the private market and doing nothing ourselves. The fact that we have topped up the affordable homes programme by £800 million and brought forward this bridge of £2 billion in anticipation of the future grant funding to come is very much at odds with his description of leaving it all to the market. The Government are not leaving it all to the market; we are providing grant funding over and above what we inherited from the previous Government.
Gideon Amos
We have always accepted and we support that allocation of funding to social housing, but a theme in Government thinking seems to be that the delivery of more homes through the private sector will bring prices down. If the Minister wishes to correct me, he should feel free to do so. That was my central point: we cannot rely on private housing to do that. The delivery of social homes needs to be done by Government. I was pleased with the Minister’s passion for delivering social homes, which he expressed clearly, and I therefore expect him to accept the amendment. It would simply increase the targets to deliver social homes to a reasonable level of 150,000 per year.
The delivery of social homes is a priority. We need to fund that to make it happen. If we really want to deliver more homes in this country, however, there are two big blockers, and they are not people, wildlife or the communities who will lose their voice in planning committees. The blockers are the funding for social housing and for infrastructure. If those two things were brought forward, I suggest that we would be able to build almost unlimited numbers of new homes.
For all those reasons we moved our amendment, which would simply take the Government’s rightful ambitions and laudable objectives of delivering social homes a little further and faster, and would set a target for the first time for the delivery of social homes. We do not have such a target, but one is desperately needed if we are to address the housing crisis, as organisations across the board have attested we should, including the National Housing Federation, Shelter and so many others. On that basis, I have moved this amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. The first one is pretty obvious: as far as I am concerned, we can remove jackets if we so wish. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 1
Regulations about bringing dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert—
“(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee today. I also want to thank Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all the officials, and everyone else who helped draw up the Bill, including my team in my parliamentary office. Many veterinary and animal welfare organisations contributed to our discussions over the last few months.
I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. Ending puppy smuggling is an aim of three major parties, so I am pleased that together we are committed to tackling the trade. The Bill aims to address the issues of illegal puppy smuggling and low-welfare movements of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom. Evidently, we are a nation of animal lovers. A survey conducted last year by the PDSA showed that 51% of UK adults own a pet, and I contribute to that statistic. At home we have Frank, a border terrier cross pug who is now 15 years old, and I was able to wish him happy birthday in Westminster Hall the other day. We also have Moose, an 11-month-old labrador; my partner Emma is doing the bulk of the training, which is pretty tough.
As the mental health spokesman for the Lib Dems, I have long been aware of the mental health benefits of owning pets. In veterinary practice, we often find that people come in who might be a widower or who might live alone with a pet. Certainly, during lockdown, many people told us that it would have been unbearable had they not had the company of their pet. We sometimes underestimate just how important being able to own a pet is for people’s wellbeing.
During my time practising as a veterinary surgeon, I met many members of the public who had bought a new puppy and discovered afterwards that it was potentially smuggled in from abroad—they had absolutely no idea when they went to buy it. A survey showed that about half of adverts online are for potentially smuggled puppies when people think they are buying one from the UK. This is not a niche problem; it is a huge problem.
It is clear how much pets mean to people across the country. The pet travel and import rules are there to protect our pets’ health and welfare. They ensure safe travel for pets and assistance dogs with their owners when relocating to the UK to settle in their new homes. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. The number of non-commercial movements of pets has risen dramatically over the last decade, and with that, the risk of fraudulent activity. Data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency showed that in 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britian. It is important to highlight that, under the current pet travel rules, there is a limit of five pets per person, but deceitful traders abuse that rule by claiming ownership of up to five pets each, which allows them to cram large numbers of animals into vehicles for transport into Great Britain in a single trip.
Evidence from stakeholders suggests that the increased demand for pets during the covid-19 pandemic has also led to a considerable increase in the illegal trade of puppies. The welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised, with puppies being separated from their mothers far too young and transported into Great Britain in sub-par, unsafe conditions.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks eloquently about the plight of puppies being transported into the United Kingdom. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats, and the proud owner of two cats, Clement Catlee and Mo Meowlam, I can also attest to the positive benefits that they bring to mental health.
On the transport of cats into the UK, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a significant rise in the number of purebred and pedigree cats over the last five years? Last year, for the first time, the percentage of pedigree and purebred cats obtained, at 45%, overtook the number of moggies, which is currently at 43%. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that stress in cats is often very serious, and that travel is particularly stressful for them?
The Chair
I realise that we had to get the cat names in, but may I ask for interventions to be brief? The hon. Lady is of course welcome to try to catch my eye if she wants to make a longer contribution.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Lady is completely right that the surge in demand for pedigree cats has also led to a surge in demand for the illegal import of cats, and cats struggle more medically with stress than most other animals.
Paired with the illegal trade of puppies is the emerging practice of moving heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain to sell their litters. There is anecdotal evidence that these animals are brought into Great Britain to give birth and then transported back to breed again in low-welfare conditions abroad. If we do not act now to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, it is a worry that traders may turn to this tactic when we raise the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens. The British Veterinary Association reported last year that one in five vets reported seeing illegally imported puppies in the previous 12 months.
There is also a concerning demand for importing cropped and docked dogs into Great Britain, even though it has rightly been illegal to carry out a non-exempt mutilation within Great Britain for more than 15 years. That loophole creates a smokescreen for ear cropping and tail docking to be carried out illegally in the UK, where it is not done by a vet and probably not done under anaesthetic, causing a huge amount of physical and psychological damage. The loophole allows individuals to claim that these dogs have been legally imported. Ear cropping reports have increased sevenfold in the past five years, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill will provide the powers to improve welfare for our beloved pets, including powers to close these loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders and prevent these abhorrent pet-smuggling practices.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and all those involved for bringing this legislation to close those loopholes. I have two cats myself, Cookie and Sprinkles, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his private Member’s Bill that will allow a safe practice for people to have pets, which will rightfully help their mental health. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Bill is vital and much needed.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am really enjoying all the cat names—that is a very good reason for introducing the Bill on its own. Although this is a huge animal welfare issue, we should also acknowledge that, because these dogs and cats are being brought in illegally, it is a public health issue, as they are clearly not being tested, checked or registered, so there is the risk of them bringing zoonotic diseases such as rabies and Brucella into the UK. So that we can consider the Bill in more detail, I will now run through its eight clauses.
The Chair
Order. Just the one we are discussing at the moment, and we will return to the other clauses later.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
Clause 1 creates a regulation-making power that will allow the Government to introduce measures through secondary legislation to tackle low-welfare movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom from third countries. Importantly, the clause gives the Government the ability to introduce regulations to respond dynamically to pet smuggling practices as they evolve in the future. We know that illicit traders are quick to react to legislative changes and find ways to circumvent new restrictions, so the ability to impose restrictions to protect animal welfare both now and in the future will be important and will ensure that we can tackle illegal activity and pet smuggling quickly and effectively.
Subsection (1) empowers an appropriate national authority to make regulations about the bringing into the UK of dogs, cats or ferrets for the purpose of promoting their welfare. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that includes the ability to prohibit or restrict such imports according to specified criteria. An appropriate national authority is defined in clause 3 as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) provides an indicative list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. Those include exemptions to prohibitions or restrictions, issuing permits and enforcement mechanisms.
Many Members have asked me about this next point. Ferrets are included in the scope of this regulation-making power to align with the scope of the non-commercial pet travel rules, which apply equally to dogs, cats and ferrets. Our pet travel rules apply to dogs, cats and ferrets because they are species that are susceptible to rabies and commonly kept as pets.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for inviting me to be on the Committee, for introducing the Bill and for mentioning ferrets. It is very important. In discussing the last iteration of this legislation, I put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar, and I would like to repeat that.
Dr Chambers
He is not—my condolences to the hon. Lady’s brother on the loss of Oscar, his much-loved ferret.
Crucially, subsections (3) and (4) state that the first regulations made under the regulation-making power in subsection (1) in relation to England, Scotland and Wales must include prohibitions on the three specific types of low-welfare imports. Governments in Great Britain must first use the power to raise the minimum age at which a dog or cat can be brought into Great Britain to six months, to prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant and to ban the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, such as cropped ears.
Johanna Baxter
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under subsection (4)(c), the reference to cats that have been mutilated includes cats that have been declawed?
Dr Chambers
Yes, I can confirm that. The declawing of cats is specifically included, but it covers any mutilation that is for cosmetic purposes only and not for the welfare of the animal.
The restrictions will be subject to appropriate exemptions, which I will touch on shortly. Despite the current rules specifying that a dog or cat cannot be brought into Great Britain under 15 weeks old, we still see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or sometimes even younger. Separating a puppy from its mother too young has implications for the puppy’s health and welfare. Evidence from stakeholders also suggests that puppies imported into Great Britain have frequently been subjected to unacceptable breeding practices abroad and transported in poor conditions.
Raising the minimum age at which a puppy or kitten can be brought into Great Britain to six months old will disrupt the low-welfare movement of under-age puppies into Great Britain. At six months old, both puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately, which will make it easier to enforce the new minimum age and to identify under-age dogs and cats. We hope that the measure will result in significantly fewer low-welfare breeding operations supplying the Great Britain market.
Currently, welfare and transport regulations prevent an animal from being transported during the final 10% of its gestation. That limit is insufficient to tackle the emerging practice of importing heavily pregnant dogs, and it is very difficult to identify the stage of pregnancy accurately.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing us the Bill. Does he agree that it is especially dangerous for cats in the last third of their gestation to travel when pregnant?
Dr Chambers
Yes, we know that late-stage travel during pregnancy is a risk factor for problems during the pregnancy and that it can lead to the cat giving birth early.
The potential for low welfare during travel greatly increases as the pregnancy of the female advances, and that risks the health and welfare of the offspring. We also anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. A ban on bringing heavily pregnant dogs and cats into Great Britain is therefore needed to mitigate that. The first set of regulations made under clause 1 will go further than the current requirements, so that dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant cannot be brought into Great Britain. At 42 days, there are much more reliable visual markers of pregnancy, meaning that the ban will be much easier to enforce.
It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation in Great Britain, and it has been since 2007. Despite that, demand continues for pets with mutilations such as dogs with cropped ears or docked tails and declawed cats. Those procedures are cruel and cause unnecessary pain. The definition of mutilation is set out in subsection (9):
“a dog or cat has been ‘mutilated’ if it has undergone a procedure which involves interference with its sensitive tissues or bone structure otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.”
For example, the amputation of the tail of an injured dog for medical reasons would still be permitted. Allowing people to bring animals into Great Britain that have suffered in this way only outsources such cruelty. Fundamentally, the ban would make the purchase or ownership of dogs and cats of non-exempted mutilations extremely difficult. It would also remove the smokescreen that enables ear cropping to continue to be done illegally in Great Britain with relative impunity.
Members will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial provisions. That is because very low numbers of ferrets are being brought into Great Britain, and unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in, or low-welfare movement of, ferrets at this time. Importantly, the regulation-making powers in clause 1 will allow for measures to protect ferrets’ welfare to be introduced in the future should that situation change. Those three measures are widely supported by stakeholders and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Together, they will help to disrupt low-welfare movements of pet animals into Great Britain for sale.
Delivering the measures via secondary legislation allows the Government the opportunity to gather further evidence and to discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. That crucial exercise will ensure that new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively with no unintended consequences and with appropriate exemptions. I understand that the Government have already started engaging with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club, to gather information and to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support appropriate exemptions. Any exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited. Importantly, as set out in subsection (5), the prohibitions would only be lifted in subsequent regulations following consultation with appropriate persons.
Subsections (6) and (7) will enable regulations to set out a process for non-compliant dogs, cats and ferrets that are seized or detained. That will allow for the costs of detention to be met and, if necessary, for animals to be rehomed. The powers will help enforcers to effectively tackle the low-welfare movements of dogs and cats that are routinely seen on entry into Great Britain, while maintaining our high standards of biosecurity. Subsection (8) will allow regulations to make provision for monetary penalties to be imposed, which will help to ensure that measures envisaged by the Bill can be enforced appropriately and act as a sufficient deterrent.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to speak to clause 3, but, if he wants to do so, now would be the time.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 3 outlines who can exercise the regulation-making powers in clause 1. For the purposes of those powers, clause 3(1) defines the “appropriate national authority” in respect of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That subsection confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland will have the power to make regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the movement of animals into Scotland or Wales for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of the Bill means that the reserved matter in paragraph 20 of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore clause 3(2) sets out that the consent of the Secretary of State may be necessary when DAERA proposes to make regulations under the powers in clause 1. To provide for effective collaboration, clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that extend and apply to Northern Ireland where DAERA gives its consent. Subsection (4) sets out that DAERA’s consent would not be needed in such circumstances as described by subsection (2).
Sarah Champion
I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.
My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.
The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.
Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.
I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.
The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:
“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.
That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.
Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.
I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK.
As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.
It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health.
Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk.
I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.
I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals.
As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak to clause 1 and the related amendments. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on bringing forward this important Bill, which is backed by huge expert and public support. It is great to see the Public Gallery so full. I must declare my allegiance to the cat community—although I am anxious about the ferret community not having quite the popularity. You will be pleased to know, Sir Jeremy, that I will not be naming my cats. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They have asked for anonymity—[Laughter.]
Frankly, action on a lot of the issues the Bill addresses is a long time coming, and much work on this subject has been done by previous hon. Members before the hon. Member for Winchester. This debate demonstrates the genuine cross-party support that exists on these issues. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s provisions, particularly clause 1, which will protect young animals with a six-month minimum age limit, end the importation of mutilated animals, and prevent the transport of heavily pregnant animals.
As Members have already outlined, the Bill will go a long way in enabling us to tackle the criminals who take advantage of policy loopholes. It is vital that we uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader in animal welfare by taking a firm stand against cruelty and exploitation. But the Bill—particularly clause 1—is about more than animal welfare, as it also extends to the protection of public health. As has been outlined, some smuggled animals could carry harmful diseases that can be transmitted to humans. I urge colleagues to support clause 1 and the rest of the Bill as it goes forward.
While I am on my feet, I hope you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy. It is an animal welfare Bill, so I would like to press the Minister for an update on when the animal welfare strategy will be published. We are desperately waiting for it, and many of the private Members’ Bills that are coming forward would be aligned with that strategy.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his Bill and for asking me to be on the Committee, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into legislation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
I am delighted that we are here to discuss this Bill. I was the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884. Now, vets in the Commons are a little bit like London buses: you wait 130 years and then another five years, and then another one comes along. I am delighted to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester. Vets in the House of Commons are now a bit of a danger: we are breeding like rabbits. At this rate, we would probably be able to fill a car by the end of the century. But under this new legislation there would be a maximum of five vets per car.
I strongly support the Bill and cannot say how pleased and relieved I am to be here today opposite my friend the Minister. We served together on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee and have now swapped places. I am delighted that this Bill is now getting over the line with cross-party support. Can I also offer a shout out? This legislation was started under the Conservative Government: the clauses were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and then the former Conservative Member of Parliament for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, had a private Member’s Bill identical to this one. I pay tribute to her. We are here today to push that work forward.
I, too, acknowledge the important work of the charitable sector and organisations in the animal space including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust—its former chief vet, Paula Boyden, spearheaded the campaign—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which the hon. Member for Winchester and I visited yesterday in the light of this Bill, the RSPCA, FOUR PAWS and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Marc Abraham, a fellow veterinary surgeon, has also done a lot of work on this issue.
In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, did a number of inquiries on this issue, one of which was on the movement of animals across borders, and we looked at a lot of the situations that are highlighted in these clauses. Our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse highlighted some of the issues that clauses 1, 2 and 3 set out and made important points about biosecurity. I welcome the measures in the clauses to increase the minimum age to six months, which will be important for the health and welfare of these animals.
I note—the Minister is well aware of these issues because we have been discussing them for many years—that some measures are not included in the Bill, and I hope that he will keep them under review and consider introducing future secondary legislation. They include the institution of pre-importation health checks for animals, the reinstatement of rabies titre checks, and an increase of the wait time after a rabies vaccination to 12 weeks. That would help to enforce the change to a minimum age of entry of six months.
I very much welcome the commitments in the clauses on the stage of gestation for cats and dogs coming into this country. The EFRA Committee heard harrowing evidence about heavily pregnant animals that are smuggled in, give birth and are then smuggled out, often with fresh suture wounds from caesarean sections. They are just shipped in and out, so hopefully the Bill will close that loophole. The requirement for import not to take place in the last third of gestation is very important. It is currently banned in the last 10% of gestation, but it is very difficult to judge the stage of gestation, so that is an important change.
We have talked about mutilations. The Bill will tighten the requirements and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, bring down the smokescreen. People are importing dogs that have been horrifically mutilated.
Aphra Brandreth
Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?
Dr Hudson
I very much agree. Ear cropping has been normalised in popular culture, but a recent survey by Battersea found that 50% of respondents had no idea that it is illegal. The fact that it is normalised in the media and popular culture means that people, sometimes unwittingly, try to source one of those animals.
Ear cropping is an absolutely horrific procedure, and it is increasingly prevalent. There is absolutely no clinical indication to crop a dog’s ears—it is just a barbaric practice. The EFRA Committee has taken evidence on it, and it is suspected that it is unfortunately taking place in the United Kingdom illegally, potentially with online dog cropping kits, which are still available, and without analgesia. If a veterinary surgeon were to perform that procedure in the United Kingdom, they would be struck off and would not be allowed to be a veterinary surgeon, but unfortunately it still goes on.
One of my favourite films, which I have watched many times with my family, is the Disney Pixar film “Up”. It is a wonderful and very moving film, but some of the dogs in it have had their ears cropped. If families see these films, it normalises the practice: people say, “That’s a lovely dog. I’d like a dog that looks like that.” As recently as a couple of years ago, the lead character in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” had cropped ears.
As recently as this year, the “best in show” winner of the Westminster dog show in the United States was Monty, a giant schnauzer with his ears cropped. The show was reported on the BBC website with a picture of the winning dog, but with no disclaimer explaining that the procedure is illegal in the UK. Anyone looking at the website would have thought, “What a wonderful dog—he’s won the prize!” It needs to be pointed out.
Conservative MPs have written an open letter to film studios and media outlets, calling on them to be responsible in their portrayal of dogs in the media. When studios make films with dogs, they should not have them cropped—it is very simple. When the media publish reports on such dogs, they should include a health warning.
Sadly, it is still possible in this country to buy ear cropping kits online. We are calling on the Government to close that loophole and put pressure on online advertisers so that we can stamp out that practice. I am delighted that the Bill will help to address that, because we have to stop the importation of cropped dogs, stop normalising them in popular culture and stop making cropping possible in this country.
As the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for Rotherham mentioned, it is also very important that the legislation should cover the declawing of cats, an issue that Cats Protection has highlighted. It is a horrific procedure, with no clinical indication for cats whatever. Amputating at the level of the fingernails means that cats are no longer able to express themselves, use scratching posts or climb trees. People are sourcing declawed cats so that they can protect their furniture. That needs to stop.
The recommendations that have been made about stages of gestation and about age will help to address issues with biosecurity and specifically with rabies. The importation of dogs carries zoonotic risks, including risks of rabies and brucellosis, so it is important to keep that under review. Many dogs that are rehomed from eastern Europe have brought diseases in with them. People bring them in unwittingly, thinking that they are helping, but actually it is putting dogs and people in this country at risk. I urge the Minister to consider secondary legislation to add pre-importation health screening.
As we debated when considering the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we should potentially reinstate the tick and tapeworm treatments that stopped in the EU in 2012. A few years ago, in Harlow, Essex, there was a case of babesiosis in a dog that had never left the country. Another dog must have come in and dropped a tick that the Essex dog then picked up, leading it to contract the disease.
It is important to be cognisant of animal and human health. The hon. Member for Winchester is a huge advocate of the concept of “one health” for animals and humans. We give a lot of affection to the pets we love and nurture; they give us a lot in return, and it helps our physical and mental health.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me push the Government to ensure that Bills like this one protect our biosecurity. In this context we are talking about a small animal setting, but the Animal and Plant Health Agency is pivotal in protecting not only against canine brucellosis, rabies and babesiosis, but against diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I did at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on Thursday, I will push the Government to make sure that they rapidly redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition stand firmly—125%—behind the Bill. We wish it well.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for promoting this private Member’s Bill; as we have heard from a range of hon. Members this morning, it is an extremely important Bill for animal welfare and the safe movement of our beloved pets. I also thank him for the amendments that he has tabled, which I assure him the Government support.
I echo the witty comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, at the beginning. We have been through a long journey on this issue, and I am delighted that Parliament is at a stage where we can deliver it. The Bill will be welcome. I well remember the discussion of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and Selaine Saxby’s efforts, to which I pay tribute.
Dr Chambers
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is timely and essential. I thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the Committee this morning. I also thank my whole team from Winchester—
The Chair
Order. I should have been clearer: I meant that the hon. Gentleman should sum up the debate on the first group in relation to clauses 1 to 3 and the amendments that he has proposed. He will have a chance to make general valedictory statements later.
Dr Chambers
Okay; I will thank my team from Winchester again later. Shall I go on to clause 4?
The Chair
We need to first put the questions related to the first group. Before I do that, I will give a friendly warning. Clause 1 is fairly broad in scope, so I have allowed the debate to be fairly broad. Subsequent clauses are much narrower, so the debate will have to be narrower.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Regulations under section 1: supplementary
Amendments made: 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert “(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Disapplication of non-commercial rules in certain cases
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
“(b) in point (b), after ‘non-commercial movement’ (in the first place it occurs) insert ‘(including movement that would be non-commercial movement but for Article 5 or 5A)’.”
This amendment makes a minor clarificatory change in consequence of the other amendments made by Clause 4.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
Dr Chambers
Clause 4 will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules to make it harder for those rules to be exploited for commercial gain. The clause contains the second set of substantive measures in the Bill to tackle puppy smuggling. The measures are designed to make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to disguise commercial imports as genuine pet movements.
Our non-commercial pet travel rules are intended to make it easier for the genuine pet owner to travel with their dog, cat or ferret. We know, however, that some unscrupulous commercial importers abuse the existing rules to bring in pets for sale. Those individuals seek to maximise their profits, often at the expense of the welfare of the animals they are importing. By its very nature, the true extent of pet smuggling operations cannot be known; it is likely that APHA figures only capture a small proportion of the animals being smuggled into the country.
A key loophole in our current rules is that up to five pets per person can travel in a single non-commercial movement. Consequently, unscrupulous traders can claim ownership of up to five puppies each, enabling them to cram vans with tens of dogs for transportation into Great Britain in a single trip.
By bringing animals in under the non-commercial rules, these traders avoid the more onerous requirements of the commercial import regime, which include the clinical examination by vets of animals before transport and enhanced traceability requirements. These requirements protect both animal welfare and our high biosecurity standards.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank the hon. Member for the proposals in this Bill on behalf of my constituents in North Somerset and on behalf of Cats Protection, which has sent me numerous emails about this clause regulating the number of animals allowed in a vehicle. I think he will agree that these vital changes need to be made, to ensure that we end the horrible atrocity of the smuggling of puppies, cats and ferrets.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I spent many happy years living in his North Somerset constituency while I was teaching at Bristol Veterinary School at the University of Bristol. He must be very proud that there is such an institution, which does so much to improve animal welfare, in his constituency.
To close this loophole, subsection (4) of clause 4 reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain from a third country in a single non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, including vehicles on board a train or a ferry, and to three per person for foot or air passengers. This represents a significant reduction in the number of pets that can travel in a single, non-commercial movement. It is, however, a proportionate intervention that balances the need to disrupt illegal trade while minimising the impact on genuine pet owners.
The new caps are high enough to ensure that family and friends travelling together with their pets have enough flexibility to transport their pets non-commercially when they have genuine and legitimate needs to do so. They are also high enough to ensure that individuals are able to travel with assistance dogs and still have enough space to travel with any additional pets. The new limits in clause 4 also align with industry practice. Eurotunnel, which sees the greatest volume of pet movements, has capped the number of animals moving non-commercially on its service to five per vehicle.
Importantly, these restrictions would not preclude the movement of larger consignments of animals. A person who wishes to move more than five pets per vehicle or three per person for air or foot passenger travel would still be able to do so under the commercial import regime.
Currently, the pet travel rules also allow the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret into Great Britain within five days by a person authorised by the owner to carry out the movement on their behalf. Unfortunately, there is evidence from APHA and anecdotal evidence from stakeholders that this rule is also being exploited. Some individuals are known to pose as authorised persons to move animals under the non-commercial rules, when they are actually bringing them into Great Britain for sale. These pets should be moved under the commercial import regime, subject to more stringent requirements.
To prevent the misuse of these rules, clause 4(5) amends the existing pet travel rules to directly link the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret with its owner, in order to ensure that a pet can only be moved by an authorised person if it is within five days of the owner’s completing the same journey. Subsection (6) also makes amendments to the non-commercial pet travel regulations to ensure that only an owner, and not an authorised person, is permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog, cat or ferret is non-commercial.
Amendments 5 and 8 together, with consequential amendments 4, 6 and 7—provide the appropriate authority with powers enabling it to grant exemptions in certain circumstances from the requirements affecting non-commercial movements of pet animals in new articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for inviting me to join him on this Committee. Our much-loved cockapoo, Todd, came to us as a result of rehoming from a family in the UK who had underestimated the needs of such a lively young dog. I align myself with my hon. Friend’s comments about the mental health benefits of pets, particularly as we are in Mental Health Awareness Week.
Todd has certainly improved our lives, especially by acting as an informal therapy and support dog for our son George. However, importing puppies too early or without their mothers can cause stress to the animals, which can lead to behavioural issues and, later, their abandonment by people who are completely unprepared for the attention, investment and care needed by their pets. I therefore welcome the clauses that will limit the number of animals being moved internationally, but I am concerned that amendment 5 to clause 4 could open up risks under the non-commercial rules relating to the numbers of animals, as well as the exceptions and exemptions that are available.
Many friends of mine have changed the lives of rescue dogs from Eastern Europe, including Cassie and Merlin, but research by RSPCA suggests that some—not them, I stress—are unknowingly imported commercially under the guise of pet rescue. I ask the Minister what additional and specific measures can be taken to support those who seek to give new homes to dogs from abroad and ensure that the exemptions are tightly regulated. I also want to thank the Government for supporting the Bill and ask for clarification on the progress made on their commitments in the Labour manifesto. Specifically, I would like to ask for an update on the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is so important to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is doing, and on tackling of horse, pony and donkey smuggling in the animal strategy.
The Chair
I know the Minister will recognise that the latter list of animals is not covered by the Bill. However, out of the generosity of his heart, he may want to give a short answer on that. I come to the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Hudson
The measures in clauses 4 and 5 on the delineation between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals are important. The Opposition very much welcome the provision in clause 4 reducing the number of animals to five per vehicle or three per person. I know that many campaigners, including the Dogs Trust and various charities, wanted that figure to be three per vehicle, based on the surveys that they had done. However, if we think about what has happened with unscrupulous traders picking up foot passengers who potentially have four or five animals with them, five per vehicle in this legislation is a darned sight better than potentially 20 per vehicle. I urge the Minister to keep the limit under review; if there is evidence that anything is being exploited, I am sure that reducing the five down to three would be very much welcome across the sector.
A key point that I want to stress in clause 4 is the difference between commercial and non-commercial transportation. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and animal charities have found that people have been flipping between commercial and non-commercial transportation of animals to get away from the authorities. I urge the Government to keep a watching brief on that issue. If there is evidence that people, because of this legislation, are flipping between the two, the Government must stamp down on what would be an alarming development.
Finally, I briefly turn to amendment 5 to clause 4. I very much understand the methodology and the reasons for tabling it, but the Government, who are supporting and drafting this amendment, need to clarify what is meant by “exceptional or compelling circumstances”. We have heard some examples, but some in the sector, such as the RSPCA, have expressed some reservations that amendment 5, while well intended, might unfortunately create a loophole.
In his summing up, can the Minister give clarity that the Government will keep a watching brief on that issue and be very clear about who we mean by “exceptional and compelling circumstances”? As with any legislation, unintended consequences and loopholes can develop, and we know that in the animal smuggling sector bad people, who are doing bad things to animals, exploit loopholes. I urge the hon. Member for Winchester and the Government to clarify that amendment 5 will be okay.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for all the contributions on this very important part of the Bill, and I will try to address briefly some of the points that have been made. On bringing the numbers down from five per person to a maximum of five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger, I hear the points made by both the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
The Government strongly support the reduction, but a limit of five pets per vehicle gives flexibility for individuals travelling with assistance dogs alongside their other pets, as well as family and friends travelling together, as the hon. Member for Winchester explained in his introductory comments, while also significantly reducing the risk that non-commercial pet travel rules will be abused. Clearly, we will always monitor the way in which this works and act accordingly. The limit of five pets per vehicle and three per air or foot passenger was recommended by the EFRA Committee back in April 2024.
In passing, I will also reference the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We are well aware of the need to update it, and it will be in the programme in future—it is a question of finding legislative time, but we are very keen to proceed. The Government also strongly support the Bill’s introduction of a requirement for pets and their owners to travel within five days of each other—that is really important. It will link a pet’s movement to their owner’s, closing a loophole that we know is exploited by unscrupulous traders.
As explained by the hon. Member for Winchester, amendment 14 is a clarificatory change to make it clear that the existing definition of pet animal is not affected by the measures in the Bill; some of these finer points are really quite important to ensure that we do not introduce unintended consequences. The amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by clarifying that the Bill is not changing the definition of pet animal, to avoid any unintended consequences that may impact the operation of the pet travel regime. I urge Members to support that amendment.
Turning now to amendments 4 to 8, we all recognise the importance of the measures in clause 4 to prevent abuse of the pet travel rules and to close existing loopholes. However, to address the point raised by the shadow Minister, sometimes exceptional circumstances arise where strict adherence to those rules may be impractical or negatively impact individuals, such as those—but not only those—with protected characteristics. In our view, an intentional and tightly controlled exemption is entirely appropriate, but I give an absolute assurance that it will be in very limited circumstances. The Government will be able to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that groups such as those with protected characteristics are not adversely impacted, but there has to be sufficient justification for an exemption.
The purpose of the amendments is to give us flexibility and to allow the objective of introducing tighter restrictions on pet travel to be balanced with the need to ensure that genuine pet owners are not penalised in emergency situations, and that those with protected characteristics can, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, travel together. We are trying to get the balance right, and obviously we will see how it plays out in practice. I genuinely believe that the exemption upholds our commitment to ending puppy smuggling while offering flexibility, providing that individuals can demonstrate that their movements are genuinely non-commercial. The exemption would not create any blanket exceptions from the rules, and its application would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
My officials will be working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop clear operational guidance outlining exactly what circumstances might justify an exemption and what evidence would be necessary. That will be communicated to the public ahead of the measure coming into force. For those reasons, I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Consequential provision
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 6, page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power to make provision in regulations that is consequential on clause 4 or 5.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7 stand part.
Motion to transfer subsection 7(1).
Motion to transfer clause 7.
Clause 8 stand part.
Dr Chambers
I have speaking notes for clauses 7 and 8, but I feel that they are very technical and probably do not add much to the debate. Unless Members particularly want me to read out those notes, I am happy to move on without discussing them.
The Chair
That is entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He does not have to read them out if he does not wish to.
Dr Hudson
I rise to support clause 6 and the subsequent clauses within the Bill. I will be very brief; I just want to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest standard of animal welfare in the world, and with legislation like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare, as we have seen today, unites us in humanity across the House, and it is so important that we support such legislation.
I thank everyone involved with this Bill: the DEFRA team, the Clerks, Hansard, the Bill Committee, the Doorkeepers, and the public for coming, watching and engaging with this process. I thank my friend and veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester, for introducing this important legislation. I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament, as a shadow Minister, as a co-sponsor of the Bill and as a veterinary surgeon. It has my full support.
Daniel Zeichner
I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Regulations
Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—(Dr Chambers.)
Ordered,
That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5.—(Dr Chambers.)
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement.
There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day.
We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself.
On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.
Dr Hudson
I am grateful that the hon. Member has brought up the issue of brachycephalic animals. Again, it highlights the situation in popular culture and the fact that we need to educate people and try to stop advertising companies using these flat-faced animals as part of their “cute” advertising campaigns. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a question of educating the public, but also we need to inform the debate around popular culture for these animals?
The Chair
Order. I point out, before the hon. Member for Winchester responds, that we seem to be moving on to his next private Member’s Bill, so let us deal with this one first.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and as someone who helped to draw up the British Veterinary Association advertising policies for use of animals in adverts, I certainly urge all companies to read that before they produce adverts.
In relation to this Bill specifically—the hon. Member has touched on this already—we are mindful that we will need to review with the Government how effective our biosecurity is. This legislation should help hugely in lowering the risk of rabies, Brucella canis and other diseases that can affect humans, but other steps may need to be taken, perhaps through other Departments or other legislation, to ensure that we have rigorous public health safety when we have a large number of animals moving between countries. We also need to ensure that people are not inadvertently affected by this measure. Many organisations and individual constituents have contacted me with concerns, and we will have to keep an eye on how we can improve things for individuals with secondary legislation.
I thank everyone who has worked on this measure for many years, in whatever capacity and both outside and inside Parliament. I am fully aware that it was part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill initially. It was then brought forward by the former Member for North Devon in the last Parliament and with a lot of help from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I am so proud to have finally got it over the line, but I am also very mindful that it was not me on my own. This has been a huge discussion for many years by a lot of people, on a cross-party basis, and I am very thankful for all the work that has been put in, so thank you.
The Chair
I add my thanks to the hon. Gentleman and all other members of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert “;
(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”.
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”.
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”.
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”.
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Good afternoon and thank you all for coming to this afternoon’s line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I apologise to the Minister and anybody who felt that I was going so quickly through the agenda yesterday morning that they felt interrupted—that was not my intention. I think everybody has understood that the agenda is very long. I will try to make sure that I do not interrupt anybody today, but please remember that we need to move through at pace.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 47, page 66, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would create a requirement that spatial development strategies specify infrastructure of strategic importance for the purposes set out in subsection (4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 47, page 66, line 5, leave out first “or” and insert “and”.
This amendment would create a requirement that infrastructure of strategic importance specified in a spatial development strategy have the purposes both of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Amendment 79, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, after “area” insert
“, including through the provision of social infrastructure.
(4A) For the purposes of this section, ‘social infrastructure’ means the framework of institutions and physical spaces that support shared civic life.”.
Amendment 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”.
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to amendments 88 and 89, which together relate to spatial development strategies and their content. The important point is that spatial development strategies should provide properly for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Currently, the Bill says that they “may” provide for those matters. From the Liberal Democrats’ point of view, spatial development strategies must provide for tackling climate change.
Amendment 89 seeks to change the Bill’s current wording so that instead of saying that spatial development strategies may consider mitigation “or” adaptation, it says that they must consider mitigation “and” adaptation. It seems perverse that it should be one or the other. That may not be the intention, and no doubt the Minister will have a lengthy explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is, but our position is that climate change must be tackled in spatial development strategies. It is not an either/or in terms of adaptation and mitigation: it needs to be both.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure.
Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. On your comments about the speed with which you handled things yesterday, that is to your credit as a Chair, rather than the other way around.
I rise to speak to Lib Dem amendments 89 and 123. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Climate change mitigation and adaption are needed. Mitigation is about preventing climate change and adaptation is about dealing with the effects of climate change that we have not been able to prevent.
Amendment 123 relates to our earlier amendment on infrastructure delivery plans, and is intended to achieve something similar. House building is essential, as the Committee has discussed, to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning. We have targets for building homes, but we do not have the same targets or focus for all the things that come alongside housing.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen population growth of 35% in 20 years, which is why the boundaries of the predecessor constituency of Wantage shrunk considerably ahead of the 2024 general election. The single biggest issue I hear on the doorstep is that our services are struggling to cope. People cannot get doctor’s appointments, their children cannot access vital special educational needs and disabilities services, roads are often at a standstill and residents are not happy with the amount of amenities provided.
We must invest more in local infrastructure, particularly where there has been considerable housing and population growth, and support our local authorities to deliver it. Local authorities often do not have the powers or funding to deliver some of the most important infrastructure, particularly in respect of health, which is administered at a more regional level, and major transport schemes, as I will to illustrate. Nor does anyone within local authorities have the power to hold the bodies responsible to account—at least not fully.
For example, a new housing estate in my constituency has a bare patch of land designated to be a GP surgery. There is money from the developer in the section 106 agreement, to put towards the build, but the body responsible for delivering healthcare is the regional integrated care board, and although the development has been finished for a number of years, the land for the GP surgery still sits undeveloped. Fortunately, the district council is working with the ICB, and the GP surgery now has planning permission. But if the ICB had chosen, it may not have been delivered at all—there are no targets as part of the planning process that say the ICB has to deliver it. I am sure that is not the only case and that the same thing is replicated across the country.
Another example from my constituency is that of a new railway station at Grove to support the enormous population growth we have seen at Wantage and Grove. Local authorities do not have the power to insist that funding is allocated to that station on the Great Western main line, and are dealing with significant problems in accessing facilities in Oxford, as well as access to London and beyond. By not delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for housing growth, which is essential, as the Committee has discussed.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s supportive comments about the delivery of infrastructure, how it will unlock housing and how it needs to come forward to do so mean that he must be lending his support to the reopening of Wellington station in my constituency, which would unlock several thousand new homes? It was ready and construction was starting when it hit the review in July, when the Chancellor had said that such stations would go ahead.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes the case persuasively for a new station at Wellington. I note that it is not responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he is aware that railway and station re-openings in recent years have seen vastly more use than even the most optimistic forecasts and models predicted.
Without delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for the housing that we all know we need. The issue of housing targets not being supported by accompanying targets for—and commensurate investment in and focus on—infrastructure, amenities and public services needs to be rectified. That is essential for happy and well-functioning communities, and for ensuring that there continues to be public support and consent for more housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Let me take each of the amendments in turn, beginning with amendment 88. I fully agree that it is essential to consider and identify infrastructure needs when planning for new development, including through spatial development strategies. I do not agree, however, that amendment 88 is needed to achieve that outcome, as the Government intend to set a strong expectation in national policy that key strategic infrastructure needs should be addressed in spatial development strategies. Furthermore, the Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State to intervene where she considers that spatial development strategies are inconsistent with national policies, as we discussed in relation to previous amendments.
On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate that the Minister is hoping that spatial development strategies will make provision for that, but does he accept that the wording in the Bill is that they will provide for either mitigation or adaptation? That is the wording on the face of the Bill, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection.
On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure.
On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area.
I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment.
On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify.
For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states:
“A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs
“must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 28, in clause 47, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).
Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful.
A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible.
Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill.
Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.
In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.
Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites.
Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs.
Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest.
In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.
Olly Glover
I rise to support amendments 30, 28 and 1. Chalk streams, such as Letcombe brook in my Didcot and Wantage constituency, are a precious habitat, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire eloquently articulated. The Letcombe Brook Project, set up in April 2003, has done a huge amount of work—mostly through volunteers—to enhance and protect its natural beauty. It is important that the Bill is amended to specifically protect chalk streams and local wildlife sites. That is not just my opinion as a humble Liberal Democrat Back Bencher; in the oral evidence sessions and the written evidence we heard from organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and Butterfly Conservation, who are all gravely concerned that the Bill does not include enough safeguards.
In addition to the Letcombe Brook Project in my constituency, in Oxfordshire, organisations such as the Earth Trust have, in just 40 years, created precious wildlife sites that are useful for training and educating local people and children. It is important to protect those sites, which is why these amendments have been tabled, and the Bill does not go far enough.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and echo the comments about your chairing yesterday being absolutely excellent. I am sure that, as the afternoon goes on, the Government Whip will be looking for you to be as stern as you were yesterday.
I rise to speak briefly in favour of amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, on the importance of chalk streams. I know about this issue personally, as I spent five years as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which had another chalk stream in the River Itchen. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, Hampshire has a unique ecosystem and a huge array of chalk streams.
I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, which is vociferous in making sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Hampshire constituencies know about the importance of chalk streams. I will refer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North as well, because she is a very welcome part of our Hampshire family—even if many of my constituents would not accept that Portsmouth exists. She also knows how much the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust does in the local area and for us as parliamentarians.
It is important for chalk streams to be protected. We support this well intentioned amendment, because it does no harm to have guidance to make sure that spatial development strategies refer to the unique and important ecosystems that need to be protected. I do not think it is anti-development or that it would harm or hinder activating development if needed. It is a useful step and guideline to make sure that developers take into account the areas that need to be protected.
The River Hamble, which is not a chalk stream, runs through the middle of my constituency. In that river, too, we are seeing the adverse effects of development in the parameter of the river, with water run-off and the pollution that is naturally created by the building process. The current regulatory framework is not doing enough to protect those rivers.
We are seeing our river ecosystems die. That was a heavily political subject at the last general election, and we need to do more on that issue. There are provisions in the Environment Act 2021 that give chalk streams some protection, but even though I am a Conservative who does not believe in over-regulation, I do believe that having that guidance for local authority decision makers would be helpful, which is why we support amendment 1.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.
We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to
“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”
that relates to a strategy area.
Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This is an important and much debated issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the Committee whether he has given consideration to bringing this issue within the remit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, specifically in respect of species that are unique to those particular habitats. This is very much an area of cross-party interest; I am conscious of my own constituents, who have the Colne Valley, which has a chalk stream. I work closely with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose constituencies this affects as well.
This issue often goes significantly beyond the scope of a local nature recovery strategy, simply because pollution discharge or run-off in one part of a river ecosystem results in a problem elsewhere. While I am sure the Minister will say he welcomes the measures that we passed in the Environment Act during the previous Parliament—which, for the first time, introduced comprehensive monitoring for issues such as sewage discharges—I believe there is still an opportunity to do a bit more to protect these unique habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the
“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”
so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.
As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely right on this occasion. I just want to probe his comment. He outlined perfectly how, under the proposals he is bringing forward, spatial development strategies can include and incorporate the protection of chalk streams—I perfectly accept that. However, does he not accept that there is a risk that, if any of the decisions arising from the SDS are later challenged under the appeals procedure, without the national guidance that the amendments might provide, those protections might not have the full weight that they would if national regulation ensured the protection of the site? I hope he gets my gist.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I do, and I am happy to expand on the point. What I have been trying to convey is that local nature recovery strategies are a new system of spatial strategies for nature and the environment, which will map out the most valuable areas for nature, including chalk streams, and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new subsection 12D(11) requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to any part of the strategy area.
For the reasons I have given—I am more than happy to expand on these points in writing—I think that the well-founded concerns, which I understand, are unfounded in that respect. We believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired effect that the hon. Lady has argued for.
I turn to amendment 28. As outlined previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as existing provisions in this legislation will already achieve the desired effect. Again, proposed new subsection 12D(11) already requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategies that relate to any part of the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies are required to identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, and statutory guidance published by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is clear that they should include all existing local wildlife sites. Strategic planning authorities are therefore already required to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.
Similarly, existing policy already affords protection from development that would adversely affect local wildlife sites. The current national planning policy framework is clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject applications where significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. We therefore do not consider the amendments to be necessary.
Ellie Chowns
Although I take the Minister’s point that there is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from making provision for protecting chalk streams, there is not anything to ensure that all the strategic planning authorities in which chalk streams exist will definitely take those measures.
I am going to be tabling further amendments later about irreplaceable habitats. I am not in the habit of proposing amendments about every single specific ecosystem, but chalk streams specifically have global significance and are cross-border in nature, and the spatial planning strategies offer a huge opportunity to tackle the issue head-on.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must—
(a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and
(b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality.
This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality.
Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality.
Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK.
The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy.
From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health.
I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.
Gideon Amos
I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.
In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.
Matthew Pennycook
Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy.
Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his response. We will have to agree to somewhat disagree on this matter, but in the interests of time—and because I can count—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 47, page 69, line 37, leave out from “must” to the end of line 4 on page 70 and insert “consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 47, page 70, line 2, leave out “and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 91.
Amendment 91, in clause 47, page 70, line 4, at end insert “, and
(e) persons who experience disability.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to have been promoted to shadow Secretary of State, Mrs Hobhouse, but as soon as my colleagues and leader find out, I am bound to be sacked.
This important amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; we have pushed the Minister on this issue on Second Reading and other occasions. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has made clear his strength of feeling about the measures and the amendments that he has tabled on the planning system, and about the radical reforming zeal that they will deliver to people across the country, through a centralised national approach to amending our planning system.
However, the Minister does not want the scrutiny for local people that goes with that. Proposed new section 12H(3) states that
“the strategic planning authority must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy—
(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of the strategy area”,
as well as a number of other organisations. We agree with the Minister that the development strategies will be wide-ranging in their impact on local communities, but if the Minister believes that, he should also believe that the people affected by them should be consulted. He should believe that those people should have their say on whether the development strategies have been drawn up in the right way, whether they contain what they should contain and whether they perhaps contain too much.
We just discussed the importance of chalk streams, and the Minister said that there is nothing to stop authorities from putting protections for chalk streams in a strategy. However, the Bill states that these organisations “at least” have to be notified—there are people who do not have to be notified. We believe that there should at least be some consultation exercise on the detail of the draft spatial development strategy put forward by the strategic planning authority. Something as important as that should be consulted on.
In discussing chapter 2, the Minister has outlined that local people are important and that spatial development strategies are vital to ensuring that development and planning are delivered in a radical, efficient and much more concrete way. That is why we tabled this amendment. We believe that the Minister should be bold. If he thinks that the measures in the Bill are as radical as he says and that they will wholeheartedly deliver on the infrastructure and the local base-led planning system he so wants, he should be confident in allowing the people that the Bill affects to have their say and be able to share and bask in the glory of the radical agenda he is bringing through. We believe that consultation is a good thing and, as we have said on previous amendments, constituents and local people should be able to shape what they want and do not want within them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making important points about how we consult the public, but we heard clearly from him this morning that that was the role of local councillors. I refer him to new section 12I to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which provides that any spatial development strategy must be examined by the public. Another layer of consultation would be an unnecessary addition when there is already in-built public consultation in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has clearly examined the Bill, which is such a big piece of legislation—in the right way. I simply say that an examination of and consultation on the creation of a spatial development strategy would not always have what people want in it, or do not want in it, as its ultimate end goal once the draft has been put together. When a draft spatial strategy has been put together, people should be able to have their say on it.
The hon. Lady will know from her previous career, as I do from mine, that when people want to have their say on something in a consultation that an authority proposes, some will be happy—maybe they are getting what they want from it—but some will never be happy. They will always want to grumble; we have all had a few of those in our inboxes. However, we believe it is right that once something as key and new as these strategies is brought together, local people should be able to have their say.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a requirement on strategic planning authorities to consult prior and during. We are saying that once the draft strategy is put forward, it is crucial that local people have their chance to have a say. If a strategic planning authority is confident that it has made the right decision on a local development based on the consultations it has already done, it should not be scared or hindered by a consultation to see what happens in respect of the finished product.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making some eloquent points. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on bringing in a national scheme of delegation, and changing the role of the planning committee and how councillors interact with the planning process, even more consultation should be done at the stages he is describing so that we can ensure that residents still get their say over development in their area?
Paul Holmes
Yes. We had a significant debate yesterday on what I said was the Government’s centralising zeal in taking powers away from locally elected politicians. Many Opposition Members agree with me. The Opposition tabled an amendment that would not have allowed to go ahead something as large-scale being put together by a strategic planning authority, created by the Government, but the Minister won. We believe people should be consulted.
As I said to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, it is vital that when there is a democratic deficit—we fundamentally believe that one is being created by other aspects of the Bill—local people should have the right to be consulted on the end product. That is why I say this to the Minister, slightly cheekily, but with a serious undertone. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, he is the forward-looking planner of our time, and I know he gets embarrassed about these things—he is blushing—but nobody in the House of Commons is more deserving of the role of Housing Minister. He worked hard on the role in opposition, and he comes from a space of wanting to reform the system. We accept that, but sometimes his reforms have consequences, and if those reforms are so good, he should not be afraid to allow the people who elected him to his place and the Government to their place to have their say on something as radical as this change.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 91—hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. We have significant concerns about community involvement in consultation and about many of the points that have just been made. I have more to say on all that for the next group, in which we have tabled an amendment to make those points.
Amendments 90 and 91 would simply ensure that disabled people are consulted in the preparation of spatial development strategies. The Equality Act 2010 includes a public sector equality duty: a duty on public authorities to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. That implies that disabled people should be consulted on spatial development strategies in any case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on disabled people in the housing sector said:
“Despite the cross-government effort to ‘ensure disability inclusion is a priority’…we have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy.”
We need to make sure that the voices of disabled people are heard in the preparation of spatial development strategies.
Ellie Chowns
I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.
David Simmonds
When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.
We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.
We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.
There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.
Matthew Pennycook
I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.
Turning first to amendment 78—
Ellie Chowns
I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation.
The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that
“the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”.
Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.
Matthew Pennycook
May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?
Ellie Chowns
New section 12H(3) says that the authority
“must consider notifying…the following”,
so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that
“the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”.
As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area.
The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.
Paul Holmes
I am sorry about that. I am not very good at geography; I did not teach it at university.
I hope the Minister takes these concerns in the spirit in which they are intended. I say that a lot, but there is genuinely a huge concern about the difference between notifying and consulting, and about what he has said in Committee today. The minimum wording in the Bill—I guarantee that strategic planning authorities will look at it and follow it to the letter, given the work they have to do—is that the strategic planning authority
“must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy”.
New section 12H(4) outlines that the planning authorities should publish the draft spatial strategy
“as required by subsection (1)(a)”,
or make
“such a strategy available for inspection”,
but there is a vast difference between “notifying (at least)” and consulting.
Paul Holmes
I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a question to see whether he will answer, in which case we might not press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Can I make sure that this is a speech and not an intervention on the Minister? Minister, had you sat down and made all the points you wanted to make to all the amendments being debated?
Matthew Pennycook
I sat down because I saw the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rising. We do have another amendment to respond to, if he wants me to.
The Chair
I would like the Minister to speak to the three amendments we are debating, including amendments 90 and 91. I will then invite the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to respond and he can take an intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.
Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister says he knows, but in a sense the legislative underpinning that we have looked at for this measure, and the most obvious and comparable example, is the London plan. Broadly similar provisions exist in the London plan, and when it is put out to consultation it gets tens of thousands of responses to the notification, which are taken into account. I say gently that I do not think we are talking about an arrangement here much different from what applies there. To make the point again, this is a very different strategy that we are asking strategic authorities, or boards in those cases, to bring forward.
David Simmonds
One question that frequently arises when there is a challenge to a development through the process of judicial review is about whether the processes of consultation have been correctly followed. Removing a requirement for consultation and replacing it with a discretion to notify dramatically lowers the ability of people who are very concerned that developments are brought forward within their strategic plans that would not have been acceptable and would have failed to meet the proper consultation standard—for example, on issues such as air quality or environmental impact. In fact, it would be in the interests of the development industry for proper consultation to take place, rather than its being forestalled in this way.
Matthew Pennycook
I come back to the point I have made several times now: SDSs cannot allocate sites. There is a role for local plans underneath SDSs, which must be in general conformity with them. We would have failed if we simply ensured that SDSs were big local plans with the level of detail required on site allocation for a local plan. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that SDSs will not opine on whether a particular development on a particular plot of land is acceptable. They may outline the areas of general housing growth that the strategic authority or constituent member authorities want to be brought forward in that sub-region.
Again, I am more than happy to go away and set out in chapter and verse the way we think the clause might operate—if we ever get to clause stand part, I might be able to outline it in a little bit more detail—but I think that when hon. Members grasp the full detail of what we want these strategies to do and how we think they should be prepared and developed, they may be reassured. If not, we can come back to the matter on Report.
Rachel Taylor
This really is a semantic point about language. I fully appreciate that there is a massive difference between notification and consultation, but new section 12H(5) is very clear that that notification is also required to contain an invitation to the relevant person to make representations. Surely an invitation to somebody to make a representation is a consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
I did not teach the subject, so I do not know. I am content to be schooled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the philosophical meaning of a consultation versus notification. As I read it, the relevant strategic planning authority has a duty to produce and then publish a draft SDS, and they are required to notify all the groups under subsection (2). It is not exhaustive; they can add additional groups if they want to consult further. They must include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly says, an invitation to those persons to make representations, which will be considered.
Strategic planning authorities have the discretion to go further. There is nothing stopping relevant authorities undertaking wider or different forms of consultation if they wish to inform their strategy. I think what we are talking about is somewhat a semantic difference. I will leave it there. I have spoken enough about this and the reasons why the Government do not think the amendment is necessary. If hon. Members feel strongly enough, they can either press it to a vote in Committee or we can return to it on Report.
The Chair
I call the shadow Minister to respond, but I also would like to know whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations.
The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.
Paul Holmes
The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals.
The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—
Paul Holmes
—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short.
If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will intervene in the interest of trying to bring this discussion to a close, because I feel I have outlined the Government’s position in quite some detail. I have understood the points that Opposition Members have made. I have committed to reflecting on them.
I have also committed to writing to the Committee, which I will do, and it might be useful for the debates on Report if I outline, because I have made reference to the London plan, as the prime example of an existing spatial development strategy, how consultation works under that plan; how generally, in terms of the principles of good plan making, consultation operates across the system; and how we think the approach outlined in clause 47 in reference to spatial development strategies will operate. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is more than welcome to press the amendment to a vote—I do not mind in any sense—but if I give hon. Members that detail and they still feel strongly enough on Report, we can continue the debate then.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3).
On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—
Ellie Chowns
I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—[Laughter.]
Paul Holmes
After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation.
Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 70, leave out line 40 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
I want to discuss participation in and consultation on spatial development strategies. I appreciate that this will be a long day as we are going on until 7 pm, but this is a really important part of the Bill, and the level of public involvement that is allowed in spatial development strategies is really important. It is vital that the Bill gets that right.
The amendment provides that strategic authorities would have to prepare a statement of community involvement, which would set out the people who had a right to be heard on a spatial development strategy. That approach recognises that spatial development strategies are different from local plans. This debate was had, probably in this room, during debates on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Labour Government did not intend to include any right to be heard in local development plans, but they changed their mind and accepted the wisdom of the arguments that were put forward. A right to be heard on local development plans was enshrined in that Act.
I recognise that spatial development strategies are different, that a right to be heard is more challenging in a strategic context, and that the London plan does not have a right to be heard. However, the provisions on spatial development strategies in this Bill do not even go as far as those in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which set out the London spatial development strategy. That Act has a duty to take account of consultation, and there is no such duty in this Bill.
I have some sympathy for the amendment that the shadow Minister proposed—the points made were valid—but we did not feel the drafting was quite right. Picking out particular businesses and interest groups was not how we would do it. We propose that strategic authorities should develop their own statement of community involvement. After all, that is what local councils are expected to do on their local plans, so why should a mayoral authority not be required to do that on a much more overarching, much more strategic and much more powerful document that would follow as a result?
In another respect, the Bill provides for even less consultation than there is on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008. In that Act, there is a statutory duty to take account of consultation—I believe it is in section 50, if memory serves me correctly. In this Bill, there is no duty to take account of consultation. There is a difference between considering notifying parties and consulting them and being required to take their views into account.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear:
“The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”—
which we have just discussed—
“and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”.
A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public.
We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process.
We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so.
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities.
Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role.
I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination—that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.
For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gideon Amos
We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 47, page 74, line 10, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 48.
Schedule 3.
Gideon Amos
The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will be extremely brief on this topic. Simply put, there is no provision for how often a spatial development strategy should be reviewed, and our amendment proposes that it be done annually. It may be that annually is not be the appropriate timeframe, but there should be regular reviews. That is the spirit of the amendment, although I will not seek a vote, to enable the Committee to make progress.
Matthew Pennycook
I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3.
In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so.
By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required.
The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment.
Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to
“giving effect to a land use plan”
to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered.
Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years.
As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Section 47: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 48, in schedule 3, page 146, line 4, at end insert—
“Habitats Regulations
11A (1) Regulation 111 of the Habitats Regulations (interpretation of Chapter 8) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘land use plan’—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘(the spatial development strategy)’ substitute ‘(the spatial development strategy for London)’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a spatial development strategy as provided for in Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(ab) a spatial development strategy of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);
(ac) a spatial development strategy of a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);’.
(3) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘plan-making authority’—
(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘replacement’ insert ‘of the spatial development strategy for London’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a strategic planning authority (within the meaning given in section 12A of the 2004 Planning Act);
(ab) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(ac) a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan;”’;
(c) in paragraph (c), before sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
‘(ia) section 12P or 12Q of the 2004 Planning Act (Secretary of State’s powers in relation to spatial development strategy);’.
(4) In paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after ‘strategy’, in both places, insert ‘for London’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(ca) the adoption or approval of a spatial development strategy or of an alteration of such a strategy under Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(cb) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(cc) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan”;’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment revises the Habitats Regulations 2017 so that the new kind of spatial development strategy (see clause 47 of the Bill) counts as a “land use plan”. The effect is that an assessment under those Regulations will be required in certain cases before the strategy is adopted.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48
Overview of EDPs
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 83, line 2, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures undertaken within Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) should significantly protect environmental features.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Clause stand part.
Clause 49 stand part.
Gideon Amos
I am sure we can hardly contain our excitement about moving on to another clause. Amendment 12 would require that conservation measures undertaken within environmental development plans should “significantly” protect environmental features.
Clause 48 is definitional, introducing the concept of environmental delivery plans and setting out briefly what they should contain. Amendment 12 would strengthen the second of the four main functions of an EDP in subsection (1)(b), which describes the purpose of any conservation measures, including an EDP, as merely to protect the environmental features in question. “To protect” is not adequate or strong enough. The amendment would have the relevant text read, “significantly protect” the features, which would provide stronger protection.
We heard oral evidence from various environmental groups at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. They rang alarm bells about the level of protection that EDPs would offer and said that it would not be strong enough. This is a specific change to the test of what those environmental measures should deliver, and it would go some way to address the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Paul Holmes
I apologise, Mrs Hobhouse, for the length of my speech on the previous clause; this one will not be as long. I will take your steer and cut my remarks to a more suitable length. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said from a sedentary position, but she is making my speech longer.
Amendment 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an attempt to elaborate on the Opposition’s arguments about Natural England. The Minister will know where this amendment is coming from. He was open to some of the challenge from Members and witnesses in the Committee’s evidence session in which concerns were repeatedly raised about the functionality, ability and readiness of Natural England to play the role expected of it by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the parameters of this legislation.
I was initially concerned about Natural England because I have had involvement with it in my constituency, and some of its response times and ability to react in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner are sometimes compromised. That is by no means a criticism of the chief executive, who I thought gave very honest and able testimony in our evidence session. I will précis her words, as I did not make a note, but essentially she said, “We are going to wait for the spending review, but there is a lot of work that we need to do. We have been assured that the Government are going to resource us, and there are added responsibilities, but we hope, we see, we think.” I am afraid that, when we are looking at such monumental changes to development and nature recovery planning, we need better than that.
The Minister was really open when we cross-examined him in the evidence session. He said that I was tempting him to give an answer ahead of the spending review. I will not do that this afternoon; I know that he is but a small cog among the many Ministers asking the Chancellor for more money to resource their Departments. I understand that, having been through it myself. None the less, we are concerned about Natural England’s ability and whether it is the right organisation to take these responsibilities forward.
Amendment 77 to clause 48 would remove the reference to Natural England and provide that an environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. The second part of the amendment, proposed subsection (1B), would provide that where an EDP is prepared by a local planning authority, the references to clauses 48 to 60, which essentially outline Natural England’s responsibilities, should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.
We believe that local planning authorities have the wherewithal to develop local environmental delivery plans. They have experience of doing so. I know that there is some challenge, given the resourcing of planning departments, but the Minister’s record on that issue, as well as the actions that he is taking through this legislation, which we wholeheartedly support, make me confident that that challenge will be met.
As I say, I am concerned to ensure that local authorities can develop environmental delivery plans. After my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has spoken, will the Minister elaborate on that in his winding up? I hope that since the evidence session, he has taken a look at some of the legislation and recommendations for Natural England, or discussed them with Natural England to reassure himself that Natural England is resourced for the actions that he and Secretary of State will require it to undertake, although I realise that he will say this is a slow-burn development going through. Those are the parameters of our amendment, and we hope that the Minister will look on it favourably. If he cannot, we hope he can give us some reassurance that Natural England is still the best fit to undertake these responsibilities.
David Simmonds
For the Opposition, support for the recovery of nature and the natural environment is a high priority. Amendment 77 and the arguments we will advance later are about ensuring that the additional capacity the Government are bringing to the process of nature recovery through their changes to the planning system is focused in a way that delivers.
As we have heard, both in evidence and in the general debates around the comparison with the section 106 process, for example, where financial contributions are sought, they are accumulated until the point when the delivery of a plan—for school places, road improvements or whatever it may be—is viable. Clearly, the Government intend environmental delivery plans to work in the same way.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has ably set out, during the evidence sessions we heard concerns about the capacity of Natural England, as a further part of this already complex system, to deliver on that objective. In his rebuttal remarks earlier, the Minister relied on the proposed new section on chalk streams, saying that it was an example of something that could be dealt with through a local nature recovery strategy. That is one alternative to Natural England seeking to create a much larger process, but there are many others.
In my constituency, we have the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which might well be able to deliver a very substantial project in this respect. All of those bodies have a very direct relationship with the local authority, which is the planning authority. Rather than create an additional element of complexity, we should streamline the process so that a local authority becomes not only the planning decision maker, but is able, through its direct engagement with the developer and its detailed local knowledge of the environment in which the development is taking place, to take on that responsibility. Should it feel that Natural England is the best delivery partner for that, okay. I am sure we would all accept that, but there will be other options available, especially when the impacts the EDP is intended to mitigate are quite specialist or quite local in their effects. That is the thinking behind the amendment.
I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in that I do not consider the Minister to be a small cog in this wheel. I am sure that his will be a significant voice in discussions with the Treasury, given the priority given to growth. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, because this is an opportunity to step away from the previous delays, which were frequently cited in evidence on the role of Natural England, and to ensure that additional capacity goes into the part of the planning system that we know is already delivering at scale—the part that is under the control of local authorities.
Matthew Pennycook
Excellent. I wanted to make sure, given previous confusion on other clauses.
Before I speak to clauses 48 and 49 and respond to the points made, I hope you will indulge me slightly, Mrs Hobhouse, as I take a few moments to set out the Government’s overriding objections to amending this really important part of the Bill, which I know will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the Opposition.
As set out in our plan for change, this Government are committed to reforming the planning system to build the homes and critical infrastructure our country needs. The reforms in this Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious targets of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. However, we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not, and should not, come at the cost of the environment.
By pursuing smart planning reforms, we can unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country, delivering a win-win for development and the environment, and building a future where nature and the economy flourish together. The new approach that the nature restoration fund will facilitate will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species, thereby delivering more for nature, not less. The fund will move us away from an unacceptable status quo. I think there is recognition in Committee that not only does the status quo deters and constrains development, but all too often it fails to improve our environment.
David Simmonds
The Minister mentioned moving to a cost recovery basis. Earlier, I mentioned a weakness of section 106: by the time funds are accumulated, maybe over a five or 10-year period, costs have risen and the delivered outcome is significantly less than was envisaged to mitigate the original impact. Could the Minister set out the process for establishing the relevant costs, with reference for example to the much-mocked £115 million HS2 bat tunnel, which came up in the evidence sessions? That has been hugely costly. We could end up with a very substantial bill that the developers and the promoters of the project had never expected in the first place, but that was judged necessary as a result of this process, despite it being entirely out of the view of the planning authority determining the original application.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come back to me on that point, but we will deal with the mechanism by which fees are set under the EDPs in a later clause. I hope that, at that point, I will provide him with more clarity, but perhaps we could defer that particular discussion, because I think it would be more appropriately dealt with then. For the reasons I have given, I commend these clauses to the Committee and ask for the two amendments to be withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be—
(a) an irreplaceable habitat;
(b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means—
(a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or
(b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.”
This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 50, page 84, line 32, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 33, in clause 50, page 84, line 33, at end insert
“, and deliver new nature-based solutions to flooding and sustainable drainage systems in the area covered by the EDP.”
Amendment 148, clause 50, page 84, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Government amendments 95 and 96.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists.
Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.
Luke Murphy
I rise to speak to clause 50. The Government and the Minister deserve complete praise for their attempt to thread the needle of building more homes while protecting and restoring nature. We must recognise that the system we inherited was failing on both counts. The innovative approach outlined in this part of the Bill, including in clause 50, is to be applauded.
I have one question for the Minister. In evidence to the Committee, there was a difference of opinion between Natural England and Wildlife and Countryside Link about whether the mitigation hierarchy would still apply under the Bill. As the Minister is aware, the Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns about the undermining of the mitigation hierarchy. Here we have a disagreement between Natural England and the OEP on the loss of the mitigation hierarchy, and whether developers can indeed get away without avoiding harm.
I have also seen written evidence from Arbtech, the leading ecological consultancy in the UK and a major employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). In its representations on the issue, it also expressed concerns on behalf of developers about the complexities that could be created for them. I ask the Minister, how can we clear up the discrepancy? It is absolutely clear that the Government want to avoid harm for habitats that cannot be easily replaced, and that the Government want to restore and protect nature and achieve our housing goals. How can we give the OEP and others the confidence that the Government’s intentions will be made a legal reality?
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.
I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.
We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns.
Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about.
Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse.
In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund.
A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.
As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.
Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.
Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.
The Chair
Order. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene, or shall I call her to speak at the end?
Ellie Chowns
I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.
The Chair
The shadow Minister would like to speak to that amendment. Can I call him first?
Paul Holmes
I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.
Paul Holmes
It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states:
“Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier.
In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4).
That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams.
I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.
David Simmonds
For the edification of the Committee, they are also known as featherbed bogs.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.
As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.
The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.
The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.
Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.
Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.
That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.
However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.
The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning.
The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states:
“In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”,
so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states:
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”
That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
For clarification, there was no further debate on amendment 148 because amendment 18 was the lead amendment in that particular group.
Amendments made: 95, in clause 50, page 85, line 4, leave out from “cost” to “likely” in line 5 and insert “, and
(b) how the conservation measures are to be maintained,
over the period covered by the EDP or, if longer, the period for which the conservation measures are”.
This amendment additionally requires an EDP to state how the conservation measures will be maintained, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements.
Amendment 96: in clause 50, page 85, line 7, leave out
“requirement for Natural England to request”
and insert “request, by Natural England,”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to remove the reference to “a requirement for Natural England” which is unnecessary.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Nature restoration levy: charging schedules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Clause 52 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP.
Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined.
I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.
David Simmonds
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a combination of indexation, which is always the relevant consideration. For example, we have been through the recent experience of covid, which unleashed a huge wave of construction inflation. If the EDP were to be negotiated at a certain point, the envisaged outcome of that might be a substantial investment in, for example, a chalk stream environment or the creation of a new habitat.
There might be significant construction inflation between the point at which that EDP is first negotiated, the point at which sufficient contributions have been accumulated from the various parties that might have been involved in the development—which gives rise to the need for it—and the point at which that money is available to be spent. How will the level of the EDP be appropriately calculated so that we do not end up with what we already see in the section 106 system, whereby a contribution is secured from a developer, but by the time it comes to be spent, it is insufficient to pay for the mitigations that were necessary when it was negotiated?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.
Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.
As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.
The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.
To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.
The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.
I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed:
“The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.”
That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3.
I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect.
Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs.
I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part.
The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward. While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.
Ellie Chowns
How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene.
The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan.
We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.
I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.
Luke Murphy
The Committee should hear exactly what the Minister has said: he and the Government are reflecting on what the OEP has said. It is only seven working days since the OEP sent its letter, so to rush forward with a full response now would be foolhardy. It is right that the Government reflect on it and we should accept the Minister at his word, given that he has strongly made clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.
Ellie Chowns
I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been.
I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.
Matthew Pennycook
I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Other requirements for an EDP
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I am conscious that the Government have asked to extend the sitting beyond 5 o’clock, and we have already reached that point. I am also conscious that there will be votes in the main Chamber. Since you have been sitting here for three hours, I am minded to give you a short break. The votes are coming at about 6.20 pm, so I suggest a 10-minute break. Come back here for 5.15 pm.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Future of Public Libraries
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of public libraries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Public libraries are at the heart of our communities. They have incredible value, as I am sure we will hear from colleagues today, but they also have an important and underutilised role in delivering the Government’s plan for change. I will talk briefly about the diverse and important roles that public libraries play in our society and the profound risks they face, and finally I will urge the Minister to work with colleagues to implement and go boldly beyond the recommendations of the Sanderson review.
That review, commissioned by the previous Government and published last year, calls on Government to develop a national strategy for public libraries. I thank the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals for supporting me to understand the challenge faced by libraries and articulate the need for change. It is good to see some friends from CILIP in the Public Gallery today.
The public library as we know it has been shaped and moulded by the laws and motions enacted in this place. It is 175 years since the Member of Parliament William Ewart, against much opposition, led the charge to introduce the Public Libraries Act 1850. The Act compelled boroughs to establish free public libraries, and it was the first legislative step in the creation of an enduring national institution that provides universal free access to trustworthy information. Opposition was rooted in the belief that knowledge was a volatile force, too potent for “the rough and poor”, who were seen as unfit to grasp or use it responsibly. Libraries, opponents warned, would become breeding grounds for unrest and lecture halls of unhealthy agitation, threatening social order. There is a sweet irony, then, in the face of an explosion of misinformation and a rapidly changing world, that libraries have become a rare beacon of trustworthy information where we can build our knowledge and skills with confidence. It may be that our democracy depends on it.
While I could spend my full time today waxing lyrical about the importance of libraries, I want to think more specifically about the needs they meet, more strategically about their role in delivering Government priorities, and more precisely about the value they contribute to the economy. Everybody knows that the public purse strings are tighter than they once were, but despite facing real-terms cuts of 49% since 2010, public libraries continue to produce immense educational, economic and social value. They have adapted in ways that William Ewart could not have imagined.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. In Somerset we have a huge number of libraries, and a recent independent review cited Somerset libraries as examples of excellence nationally. In community-managed libraries such as Castle Cary, links to carers’ groups have been established. Does he agree that libraries must be kept well-funded and accessible, in recognition of their wide-ranging role in the community, and particularly rural communities?
Jonathan Davies
I do agree. We need more money for libraries, but we also need to find ways of collaborating and innovating, so that we can do more with less. The hon. Member makes a good point about rural communities; I thank her for that.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Clearly, there is much agreement on the importance of public libraries, but in rural communities such as those in my constituency, access is often limited by insufficient transport and the rural premium associated with running services. Does he agree that the Government should urgently review steps to support access to rural libraries, so that constituencies such as mine are not left without these treasured community assets?
Jonathan Davies
I know the hon. Lady is a champion for rural communities and her constituents. The Government are looking carefully at public transport, but a national strategy for public libraries, which I will come to, could draw upon the issue she raises.
Many of our libraries have quietly evolved into digital learning centres, enterprise hubs and pillars of community wellbeing. Across the country brilliant initiatives have emerged, such as the Glass Box in Taunton, where people of all ages develop skills in 3D printing and programming in library spaces. There are initiatives such as Gloucestershire’s library-led programme tackling loneliness among older people. Those are models that should be shared.
As many as 13.7 million adults used a library last year, not just for books but to study, get online and sometimes as a place to feel safe. I believe the Minister referred to libraries as “cultural diamonds” and I could not agree more. Baroness Twycross has noted that they are
“one of the last non-transactional spaces in our communities.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC140.]
It is hugely encouraging to see such clear appreciation and understanding of public libraries at the heart of Government.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. He mentioned community spaces. My borough of Haringey uses libraries as community spaces to encourage more people to use them, with various innovative ideas, such as the library late scheme. Libraries open later and get artists and musicians to make use of the community space that libraries are there to serve. Does he agree that is a good way to encourage diverse communities to access library spaces?
Jonathan Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. People might not think to use the library, but if something else gets them through the door it might prompt them to use it again in future.
Despite the hard work done on mitigation, adaptation and commercialisation, cuts to public services since 2010 have meant that, tragically, public libraries are disappearing. Since 2010 we have lost around 276 static libraries in England, although that could be a substantial underestimate, as we are losing about 40 a year. That is not to mention the loss of good jobs for the trained professionals who run them. That is clearly unsustainable, and must not be allowed to continue.
We know that the situation in local authorities is acute, with a number of councils issuing section 114 notices. Almost one in five English councils will rely on exceptional financial support from central Government this financial year. Although local authorities have a statutory requirement to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, that requirement is vague and untested, leaving the service at risk of being targeted for savings and efficiencies.
I do not envy local authorities for the difficult choices they have to make. We have a false dichotomy, however, between long-term ambition and short-term crisis.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Derbyshire Dales libraries play a crucial role, hosting all kinds of community activities and providing space for the next generation to socialise and learn. They are a lifeline for those in the most remote and rural parts of the constituency, especially the elderly. The access that libraries give to the internet, and physical and digital services such as printing and archives, is vital for so many in our towns and villages. The previous Conservative council made significant cuts to opening times of local libraries, and the newly elected Reform group has made no promises to safeguard them. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the urgent need to protect our local libraries from cuts, especially where they serve remote and rural communities?
Jonathan Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Conservatives ran Derbyshire county council until a matter of days ago, they signed off £625,000 of cuts to the library budget over four years. They did keep all the libraries open and they removed reservation fees for much of the stock. Credit where it is due—I welcome that. Savings were achieved through reduced opening hours, as my hon. Friend said. Reducing opening hours may be a difficult decision that some councils need to take to keep libraries open, but we know that the impact of those decisions will disproportionately be felt by people who already face a lack of opportunity, which is also true of library closures.
As my hon. Friend said, Derbyshire now has a Reform-led council. We know very little about Reform’s priorities for the authority or how it will run services. I urge the new Reform UK leaders of Derbyshire county council to recognise the value of local libraries and find innovative ways to work together, collaborating to help them grow.
I know the Minister will not be able to commit to putting more money into libraries, without a strong evidence base for what it will achieve. That strikes at the heart of the problem. We do not know what the extent of public library provision is. We do not know where it is, what it does and what it could do. Regulated healthcare services are listed in a national database, with contact details for their leaders and information about what is being provided. A similar resource could be developed for libraries across local authorities, schools, colleges, universities, healthcare settings and prisons. It could show who can use them, the extent of their catalogues and the range of skills held by the professionals behind them. There are opportunities to use libraries for a range of activities, including commercial ones, which would help them deliver increased public value.
A national database could support collaboration between library and information professionals and allow the Government to better use the full portfolio of those services to support their skills and community cohesion agendas. That is why I echo calls from the other place for the Government to develop a full national strategy for public libraries, backed by robust data. Not only would that intervention produce savings by reducing demand on other services, but it would unlock significantly more value than it would cost to implement. A national strategy could help a child to get a better start in life, a parent to receive the support they need, a jobseeker to find a quiet and supportive place to search for work, somebody struggling to understand an important but confusing form that they need explaining to them, an entrepreneur to find a new niche, or an older person to safely pay a bill. All that is in addition to satisfying a thirst for knowledge, which seeks to understand and further the human condition.
Many local authorities already calculate the contributions that libraries make to public health initiatives, digital inclusion, adult education, tackling isolation and so much more, but too often that work is done to identify where the least harmful savings can be made. Other institutions, such as schools, jobcentres and the NHS, should know what libraries are contributing to their work, and so should central Government, but without reliable data we do not have a full picture of the value our libraries are delivering, nor can we fully understand what vulnerable or disadvantaged people and communities stand to lose when their libraries start to close.
Better data would also allow us to understand the regional inequalities that doubtless exist in the distribution of services. That is why a key recommendation of the Sanderson review was to establish a national data hub to serve as the evidence base for a national strategy. Much of the rest of the Sanderson review’s recommendations can be implemented at little cost. They include the creation of a libraries laureate to champion the sector, automatic enrolment for children in the libraries run by their local council, support for the network of library volunteers who do so much more for their communities, and awareness days or branding for local libraries to tap into. When the Sanderson review was published, its recommendations were welcomed by the British Library, which has convening power and significant influence in the wider sector.
Based on the huge variety of activities and services that libraries deliver, it is clear that a national strategy must be cross-governmental. Even so, that work needs one person to hold the pen. Industry experts are concerned that libraries no longer appear in a ministerial title, and they would greatly appreciate it if that were restored. I hope the Government will reflect on that modest change.
I shall be grateful if the Minister would reflect on the Sanderson review and advise us on the Government’s plans to deliver on its recommendations, including by providing a timeline of any actions and telling us whether he supports a national plan for libraries. I shall also be grateful if he tells us what conversations he is having with CILIP, the British Library, local authorities and representatives of the libraries sector about how we can work together to improve public library provision. Finally, it would be wonderful to know what representations the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has made to the Treasury to articulate the value of libraries and ask for more money for those vital resources.
It is wonderful to see so many Members from across the House in the Chamber to talk about why public libraries are so very important. I am excited to hear about the best practice from the areas they represent, the challenges their communities have faced and the life-changing impact that libraries have had on their constituents. I look forward to working with colleagues to deliver on the amazing promise of these truly amazing, special and unique places today and for generations to come.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Thank you very much. That gives me the opportunity to say how much time people will have to speak, because I want to bring in the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister from 10.30 am. Back Benchers will have five minutes, but that may come down, depending on the level of interventions. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Dowd. I did not expect to be called this early, but it is always a pleasure to speak in a debate and to serve under your chairship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on setting the scene so well. Libraries are obviously vastly important to him, as they are to me, from a constituency point of view. He is right to highlight the importance of public libraries across the United Kingdom. I speak from some experience: I used to serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, and part of that responsibility was for libraries in Northern Ireland, including libraries in my Strangford constituency. Public libraries are services that are much loved and must be protected, so it is great to be here to discuss them.
It is always good to see the Minister in his place. I look forward to his contribution and to hearing what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), have to say about libraries.
My constituency has many wonderful libraries, including Newtownards library, which was recently refurbished; Killyleagh library, which has also been refurbished; and Ballynahinch library. Libraries are not just about books; they are also about events that can happen in them. They are always related to books, or along those lines, but they are available for different events. Last Friday there was a VE Day event at Killyleagh library, and it was a pleasure to be there. An author from Belfast spoke about his book on the Jewish people who came to Northern Ireland during the second world war. It was a lovely occasion. I think the ambience of the library added to the occasion. The subject matter was very pertinent to the area, because many Jewish people came to live in Killyleagh and their contribution to the society was incredible. I will remember that event on Friday for a long time.
In a world in which our phones and being online can dominate our time, it is fantastic that our community libraries can be upheld. Last year I was fortunate to be given some children’s books at an event here in Westminster. I met staff from the local library back home in Newtownards, and gave the books to the library so that they could in turn use them and give them to children.
The hunger and eagerness of children who read books encourages me greatly. I have six grandchildren. Every one of them, even the wee ones—the youngest are three and four—has devoured books. I was at an event downstairs in Parliament today about eating habits. It had nothing to do with this issue, but one of the things it was about was encouraging children to eat their greens. I am very fortunate because my last two grandchildren, the three-year-old and four-year-old, do not have to be encouraged to eat their greens, or to read books, but it is really important that we do that.
For young children, reading has so many benefits, including for cognitive brain development and enhancing language. I have been shocked in the past, when attending different libraries, by the sheer variety of literature offered. I do not think there is one individual who would struggle to find a book suited to them. In addition to reading, our libraries offer crucial services by providing access to computers and printing and serving as community hubs. There are knit and natter groups for the elderly: they come and do a bit of knitting and they natter for ages—well, they certainly did whenever I was there. Schools will often have libraries, but they also do visits to community libraries for talks and so on, or to meet the authors of popular books.
Libraries NI is fantastic in offering mobile libraries for rural villages that perhaps do not have decent access to library services. This gives constituents who are more isolated, and especially older people, an opportunity to get out and about and engage with others. In Northern Ireland, the arrival of a mobile library to homes across a rural constituency means a lot. Banks and retail shops have gone online and disappeared from the community, but libraries, including mobile libraries, are still there. I hope that our library services will not be left behind and that local libraries across the whole United Kingdom will continue to be funded so that they can remain open.
I will conclude, because I am conscious of the time and the five-minute limit. So many people of a wide variety of ages love and rely on our library services. We must protect libraries through additional funding and the encouragement of their use, so that more people apply for library cards and take advantage of these wonderful services. Our libraries are very much part of the community.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I have said before in this place that libraries are the NHS for the soul. They are funded by our taxes, free at the point of use and there when we need them the most. Libraries are no longer just about borrowing books, although that is still reason enough to love them; they are community hubs, digital lifelines, maker spaces, job centres and warm welcomes all in one. They offer a helping hand, a listening ear and a gateway to opportunity. They improve, enrich and inspire us. A library can change a life, whether it is a child discovering a love of reading, an adult learning new skills or someone finding the support they need to turn their life around. Libraries are the crown jewels of our communities. As with anything precious, they deserve to be cherished, protected and given everything they need to thrive.
Yet today, too many libraries are simply trying to survive. Years of being in the crosshairs of local authority budget cuts have taken their toll. But never underestimate a community that hears that its local library is under threat. The quietest places often have the loudest defenders, and they have a formidable arsenal of defensive weapons available—including, of course, paper cuts. Let us remember that libraries are not a luxury: they are a lifeline—a non-negotiable part of community life.
I have loved libraries since I was five, although I admit that a library was also the first place I ever got fined, and the only place where I have accidentally triggered a bomb scare. I like to think that I have got better at using them responsibly since then. One of my earliest memories is being taken to Bannockburn library by my mum, who told me to pick any book I wanted. I remember being overwhelmed by the choice and thrilled by the freedom. I walked out with a book on Roman warships that sparked a lifelong love of history and libraries. I should also admit that I did not walk it back in until well after the book was due, and I got a fine for my trouble. Happily, in Stirling today it has been many years since a Labour-led council did away with library fines, because no one should face a financial penalty for enjoying a book.
When I was 15 and walking home from orchestra practice, I popped into the library and lost track of time. I left my clarinet in its black case under a table. The next day it was sitting at the police station, after being assessed as a potential security threat to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who had spoken at the community centre that evening. Let us just say that the local sergeant gave me a very firm talking to when I went to collect it.
In Stirling and Strathallan, we are proud of our library heritage. The Leighton library in Dunblane—the oldest purpose-built library in Scotland—has offered books since 1687; the Smith Art Gallery and Museum included a public reading room when it opened in 1874; and Stirling’s first modern public library was opened in 1904, thanks to Andrew Carnegie’s generosity. That spirit lives on today, most recently when 270 donations from local residents funded the award-winning Thomas Graham library in Strathblane.
Across Stirling and Strathallan we have 18 libraries and two mobile library vans, serving almost 70,000 people across almost 2,500 square kilometres. And our libraries are busy, from Bannockburn library’s award-winning maker space to the fantastic Off the Page book festival, which is happening right now in libraries across my constituency. The University of Stirling’s libraries and archives, including the Scottish political archive, remind us that libraries are also stewards of our shared history.
Libraries are free, welcoming and open to all. They are where a child can fall in love with reading, someone can retrain for work, and a lonely person can find connection. In the rush to balance budgets, we must not lose sight of what libraries give us and what we lose if we let them slip away. Libraries are not a luxury; they are a lifeline. Books can open doors, but libraries hold the keys to those doors. Let us not lock the doors on future generations by undervaluing and under-investing in our libraries. Libraries ask for very little and give us everything in return. If we value community, we must value our libraries. Let us protect them, promote them and make sure that they are there—open, welcoming and thriving—for generations to come.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this debate.
I want to talk about the future of public libraries in my fairly rural constituency. In particular, I wish to highlight the role of Radstock library, one of 11 community-run libraries in Bath and North East Somerset. Although the council supports the core service, providing book deliveries and the library system, it is the local community that keeps its doors open. In Radstock’s case, the council provides the staff, premises and IT, but for libraries without council support it is a real struggle.
The value of community-run libraries is immense. In Radstock the library is much more than a place to borrow books. People come to use the public computers and printers, which are vital in a digital age. They come to read, to study, to hot-desk and to connect. The library runs events such as Lego club and knit and natter, and hosts Read Easy and employment skills sessions, diabetes workshops and the local food club.
In a cost of living crisis, libraries provide something incredibly powerful: a free, warm, welcoming space where people can learn, access essential services and find community. Radstock library relies heavily on volunteers to run it day to day, and it matters now more than ever.
We must not forget our rural areas, where mobile libraries remain a lifeline. I would like to make sure that they are considered in this debate and in any future library strategy.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend is right: Somerset council operates many mobile libraries across the county, which provide a lifeline to rural villages in Glastonbury and Somerton such as Penselwood, Beercrocombe, Norton-sub-Hamdon, and Baltonsborough, to name a few. The cost of delivering library services has increased, and the recent spiralling costs are coupled with years of under-investment by the previous Conservative administration in Somerset. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must prioritise funding for local government, because without it vital services like libraries will be vulnerable to cost cutting?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The risk with mobile libraries is that, in terms of numbers, they may not necessarily have as much footfall as a static library, but they provide much more to local communities than can be quantified in footfall. Not everyone lives near a town library, and mobile services are often the only point of access to books, the internet or advice for isolated residents. They also keep people connected, especially older residents and those without transport. From meeting the staff of the mobile library in the Somerset village of Rode in my constituency, I know that they also provide a useful early warning if someone in the village needs extra support or is vulnerable.
The function of libraries has changed dramatically over the past 20 or 30 years, but their importance is growing. If we want to tackle isolation, digital exclusion and inequality, we must protect and properly support both our community-run and mobile library services.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this timely debate.
Public libraries are critical community centres that educate and enlighten. They are used disproportionately by people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In December 2022, in my Folkestone and Hythe constituency, our main library in Folkestone town centre closed, and it has remained closed since. The library opened to the public in its current location in 1888. It is one of the oldest Carnegie libraries in the country and operated in a beautiful grade II listed building at Grace Hill.
In 2024, Folkestone was named the best place to live in the south-east of England by The Sunday Times, but there is a high level of inequality in my constituency. Three wards in the town are among the 10% most deprived in the UK, and Folkestone library has played a critical role in supporting many people, including families and elderly people who are living in poverty. The library was not some relic of the past. It was not merely a borrow-a-book service, but had become a hub for the community. It had free wi-fi and computers, it put on activities and events, and there was a local heritage service for local historical materials.
I do not want to talk too much about the Conservatives, but the sad reality was that the library, run under Kent county council, had been neglected and was allowed to get into a state of disrepair so that, today, the cost of repairing the building is around £3 million. That would have been much less had the repairs been carried out when they ought to have been.
Kent county council is now run by Reform. One of the first things said by the new leader of the KCC, Linden Kemkaran, was that she wanted to
“appoint some sort of DOGE”.
I took that as a reference to the Elon Musk-led US Government body responsible for savage cuts in the US, including in education. I gently suggest to her that after 14 years of Tory austerity, savage cuts are not what we need. I call on the new leader of Kent county council to commit to saving Grace Hill library, and to work with me and local stakeholders to make that happen.
I have never given up on reopening Folkestone library. I believe it has a future. Tying the library to the existing tide of Folkestone’s regeneration is crucial. Both national and regional government should support regeneration that has already proved successful. We need regeneration to help to fund libraries, and in Folkestone that regeneration has already happened to a degree, through the development of the creative industries over the last 20 years. There is a proposal to extend that further, with a new creative campus that would make arts an even stronger magnet for creativity and economic growth. The library is part of that. A £10 million investment in the creative campus could deliver a curriculum for creatives, creating a multi-use arts and communal space, space for the community to gather, a library offer and so on.
As a community, we know that if we want to reopen the library, we need to be creative and think outside the box. I thank the Minister for coming down to see what Creative Folkestone has done. Alastair Upton, the chief executive officer of Creative Folkestone, and I were incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving up his time to see how Folkestone is leveraging the arts to regenerate our community.
I pay tribute to Jon O’Connor and the Save Folkestone Library campaign, who have collected thousands of signatures and worked really hard to come up with a community vision for the library. It is that spirit of campaigning that will keep libraries alive. As others have said, the future of libraries has to be based on what already works. It also has to be based on regeneration and rely on sources of funding other than traditional funding models. Upskilling the creative campus idea would allow the teaching of existing creatives and provide a hub for activity of all kinds.
I believe that through strong campaigning, determination and thinking creatively about the future, Folkestone library can be saved, but it will need the help and support of the new Reform-run Kent county council. I will seek to meet the new leader of the council and whoever is in charge there to make sure that the library reopens for the good of the people of Folkestone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I have a pub quiz question for the Minister: which historic figure has the greatest number of busts in the United States? People might say George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, but the truth is that it is Robbie Burns. That is because, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) referred to, Andrew Carnegie paid for a huge number of libraries in the States and one of the conditions was that each library had to have a bust of Scotland’s national bard.
Another interesting fact—I am obviously on form today—is that Andrew Carnegie also built many libraries across Scotland and all over the UK, and indeed all over the world. He put one in particular in the village near his castle of Skibo in Sutherland—in the village hall, the building of which he also paid for. So, we can say that in the world there are two Carnegie Halls. The great-grandson of Andrew Carnegie, Mr William Thomson, tried in recent times to get Dolly Parton to come and sing in Sutherland’s Carnegie Hall, but sadly she demurred.
Like the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan, when I was a boy I visited the Carnegie library in my home town of Tain. I did rather worse than running up a fine; I actually lost a book. It was Enid Blyton’s “Five Get Into A Fix” and losing it put me in a hell of a fix. I avoided going to the library for the next two years because I was petrified of the librarian, Mr Sellar. It was only later, when I was at secondary school, that I took up the habit of using a lending library. Today I am still a member of my lending library in Tain and use it regularly.
In 1909, one of my predecessors as the MP for the north of Scotland, Sir Arthur Bignold, presented a stuffed crocodile to Wick’s Carnegie library, and it is still there. I have no intention of following in Sir Arthur Bignold’s footsteps; I do not have any stuffed crocodiles handy at the moment.
I will cite a couple of facts. A recent survey showed that 16% of the Scottish population visit a library once a week, and slightly over a third visit a library once every month. I will not try to elaborate on the excellent points that have already been made about how important libraries are to civil society. As others have said, old people use them. I remember the demise of bookshops being predicted some years ago; some people thought that the internet would get rid of them. That is not the case, because books are selling more now than ever before. Books are part of the way that we do things as human beings, whatever language and whatever form they are in. Like others, I see libraries as crucial to the happiness of society.
Finally, rather than posing another pub quiz question to the Minister, I will say that I very much look forward to hearing his response to the debate; I am sure that it will contain a lot about best practice and proposals. Would he be kind enough to share his thoughts with the Scottish Government at an appropriate point? I am sad that there are no representatives of the Scottish Government here, but we see a worrying number of closures north of the border. I completely understand that this is a devolved matter, but I am duty bound to take up my constituents’ concerns.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate.
When most people think of libraries, they picture buildings in disrepair—defunct, disused and on the verge of imminent closure. It should not have to be this way, and I am pleased to say that, in Ilford, it is not. In Ilford, we have protected our libraries. We have made them more than just places to borrow books; we made them places for families to come together, residents to exercise and communities to learn about our local history. Across the whole of Redbridge, our libraries are now state of the art, with air conditioning, refurbished reference areas, upgraded stock with 50% new titles, meeting spaces, modern public toilets, free wi-fi, and new computers and iPads. Some are now open from 6 am to 10 pm.
We achieved that in the face of the past 15 years of Conservative austerity, which gutted our local budgets. As council leader, I knew that we had to be bold. From policing to parking, and from youth centres to libraries, we refused to accept decline.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The hon. Member was leader of Redbridge council, which neighbours my borough of Havering, and I congratulate him on managing to keep the libraries in Ilford open. Will he explain, however, why the Labour and Havering Residents Association-run council that neighbours Redbridge has not managed to do the same, such that Gidea Park library, South Hornchurch library and Harold Wood library are closing? Surely we should make libraries community hubs and keep them alive for everyone to use and enjoy.
Jas Athwal
Politicians have to realise that they are in control and can make decisions. Nobody comes into politics to manage decline; we come into politics because we want to make a difference. In 2010, when Redbridge council was run by the Conservatives, the first thing they put on the table for closure was Goodmayes library, which is open to this day, because we refused to close it.
To some, what I have described may be small issues, but they are vital to the health and wellbeing of our communities and our children. That is why, despite relentless pressure to retreat and to do less with less, we chose to invest in rather than divest from our library services. We pioneered the co-location model, transforming our libraries into vibrant, multi-user community hubs, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) just mentioned.
Our Woodford Green library is also a gym. The library’s health, fitness and diet books are strategically placed so that they are there to greet people as they walk towards the gym, and are there when people come out, so they can take books on all the exercise they have done. Redbridge central library, where I host my surgeries, is a museum and has a busy cafeteria. Hainault library is a children’s centre and community hub. These are models of good practice that could and should be shared under the type of national library strategy for which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire is asking.
In Ilford, our libraries do more than just provide books and study spaces; they are community spaces to meet, learn about our history and exercise. That is what we can achieve when we put our residents at the heart of decision making. Innovative solutions do exist; we just have to be bold enough to deliver them. When we are told to shut down, we have to say that we will invest. That is how we secured the future of our public libraries, and I hope that a similar solution finds its way into a national library strategy.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate. The Chamber is very well attended, and rightly so; libraries remain at the heart of our communities.
Libraries are more than just books. They offer computer and internet access, host local community groups and provide safe spaces for those who need it. Library staff, supported by volunteers, are pillars of the community. They help those who are most vulnerable, such as the elderly, children and jobseekers. Even throughout the pandemic, libraries adapted to lockdown, and began to provide online services and activities, including e-books. Those services will have supported many families throughout those difficult times, and many would have struggled without them.
I am passionate about all children having access to a quality education, and libraries help to provide that. They provide the environment for children to be curious and have imagination. I am lucky enough to have Harry Potter world in my constituency. JK Rowling’s ability to read previous authors, like the Enid Blytons of the world, would have driven the imagination that allowed her to create the vision that we all enjoy today. Statistics show that about two thirds of children aged 15 visit the library each year in London. They use them in multiple ways by borrowing books, or using computers, printing facilities or study spaces. Nowhere else can offer all those things.
I am lucky enough to have six libraries in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire: Abbots Langley, Chorleywood Community, Croxley Green, Kings Langley Community, Oxhey and Rickmansworth. I am a regular user of those libraries, hiring meetings rooms at Croxley Green to meet constituents and to discuss a library link scheme. Croxley Green is a tier 2 library, meaning it is a community-focused, small library. Its library link scheme allows residents to request specialised research from a librarian. It also ran a slipper project, encouraging elderly people to bring in their old slippers to be replaced with new ones to keep them warm in the winter.
Rickmansworth library has unfortunately been closed for a number of months due to a refurbishment following a fire. Understandably, locals are concerned because they do not have access to the library services. I know that the county council is providing some of those services off site, but I will continue to work with Hertfordshire county council, whoever the new leader is, to ensure that my community keeps the services that it has had over many years. I do not want Rickmansworth library to be one of the 2,276 libraries that have closed since 2016.
Instead of seeing libraries close, we should be seeking plans to open new ones—for example, in Leavesden in my constituency, which does not have a local library. In England and Wales, only 78% of the population are within a 30-minute walk of a public library. We should be investing to increase that percentage. The Conservative Government committed to publishing a public library strategy, which the election unfortunately prevented.
Chris Kane
On the location of libraries, certainly in Scotland, there is a statutory duty is to provide a library service. That means that only one library could be provided for my constituency of nearly 2,500 sq km. Does the hon. Member agree that access and proximity to the library in terms of travel time is important to any strategy?
Mr Mohindra
I wholeheartedly agree, especially for some of our more rural communities. There are modern ways of solving that problem, including mobile libraries, which allow communities to have access for a few hours each week to a van that drives around, and books can be pre-ordered via an online system.
Will the Minister commit the Government to publishing a public library strategy? I am sure that members of the wider community would be keen to hear the direction of travel.
I congratulate Hertfordshire library services, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary. We should support all counties to continue offering these services, so that libraries can remain the strong community hubs they have been for so long.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing a vital debate.
As has been said many times, libraries are not just buildings or physical things; they are an emblem of what communities are, particularly in my constituency, which includes sparsely populated areas of rural Northumberland. They play a crucial role in bringing together those communities, and they foster educational thought and development.
I would like to mention a few of our fantastic libraries: the Spetchells centre in Prudhoe, Northumberland library in Heddon-on-the-Wall, Haltwhistle library, Wylam library, Bellingham library, and the Allendale, Newburn and Crawcrook libraries. My office is located upstairs at the Queen’s Hall library; it is good to have a space at the library that allows me, as an MP, to be based within the community. In Matfen, there is an old telephone box that has been transformed into a book swap shop for residents. I commend Hannah Cutler, a resident from that village, for her valuable contribution to the local community.
It is clear that libraries offer much more than educational material; they are hubs for social interaction, and for communities to share thought. In rural communities and in the fractured social media environment that we live in, that is perhaps more valuable now than ever. The opportunity to have safe, local spaces through which we can curb social isolation with shared community experiences is vital. This morning, I was reading a study that said that one in five children in the north-east do not own a book. I sincerely hope that by the end of this Labour Government’s time in office, we have combated that appalling statistic.
In my constituency, town councils do excellent work in libraries by hosting events such as green jobs fairs and events for the Ukrainian community, who have settled in my constituency since the outbreak of war in Europe and have made a fantastic contribution. Those events bring them, and some of the host families, together as a community. It is a privilege, every week, to look at the “What’s On” in the community libraries and see the different ways that communities are coming together.
Obviously, representing the largest constituency in England—which I think I am contractually obliged to mention every time I rise to speak—I do not manage to get to all the libraries every week, but I try my best. We try to hold our surgeries in every library that I have mentioned, because I think that is crucial.
It is now Mental Health Awareness Week. When we invest in libraries, we are not just investing in literacy; we are investing in mental health support, digital access and in the futures of the residents themselves. In the brief time that I have left, I will talk about rural primary schools and their libraries.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about mental health. Does he agree that for many people in their old age, visiting a library is one way of combating loneliness, which is one of the tragedies for them?
Joe Morris
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That is true not just for old people; in the communities I represent, people who work from home often go to the library and take advantage of that opportunity to get into town. It is tremendously valuable for everyone of all ages. I recognise his point, however, about older people in particular.
I will briefly mention Otterburn primary school, which is one of the smallest schools in the country, in one of the most isolated villages. Staff at the school do tremendous work. The school benefits from a breakfast club, but it is also, through the library, giving children access to books. It was a pleasure to visit the school fairly recently, and to talk about the infrastructure challenges that it faces as an extremely rural school.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for bringing forward this debate. It is an honour to celebrate the public library and the dedicated librarians who have kept them going in recent years.
Libraries are more than buildings filled with knowledge and books; they encapsulate who we are. Funded by our taxes, free at the point of need and delivery, they are the cornerstones of education, equality and opportunity in our country. Dr Seuss said, and he could not have put it better, that
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”
I think that sums up the value of the library.
The public library is a safe space for people of all ages and backgrounds to explore their imagination. I feel embarrassed to say this in front of the Minister, who is a very learned gentleman—the writer of nine books—but the library provided me with my earliest opportunities to read. I explored Enid Blyton, “Goosebumps”, “Point Horror”, “The Hardy Boys”, sometimes even Nancy Drew books. I moved on to Ed McBain, Michael Crichton and Stephen King. I also explored Shakespeare, Austen and Dickens, but the lion’s share of what I learned was probably at the lower end of the cultural spectrum. It put me in a good position to learn, to be curious, to enjoy reading and to develop that lifelong habit. I want my constituents in Bournemouth East to be able to develop that too.
The public library also provided me with something important. I grew up in poverty, caring for two young disabled parents. If I had not had a public library on my doorstep where I could go to complete my homework in a warm, safe space, I do not think I would have been elected as an MP. Were it not for the kind eyes of librarians who looked at young children and saw potential and something they wanted to nourish, I do not think I could serve as the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East. I want to thank the librarians around our country, and particularly those in my constituency, who have gone not just the extra mile but the extra 100 miles to keep libraries going in the face of significant cuts.
Since 2010, UK public libraries have lost around £232.5 million. That is because of cuts by the Conservative Government to the budgets of local authorities of all political colours and that decrease in funding being passed on. We have seen the closure of 800 libraries since 2010 and a loss of librarians, with their numbers going down from 24,000 in 2009 to 15,000 in 2018. That is a travesty.
In Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, where my constituency is based, in the last financial year we have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds taken out of libraries’ budgets by the Liberal Democrat alliance, reckoning with the mismanagement of council funds by the previous Conservative administration and the Conservative austerity that was passed on to it. The budget set by the three towns alliance caused libraries to shorten their opening hours and close for an extra day a week. The Bournemouth Daily Echo says that opening times were cut by an average of 10 hours per week per library across BCP. In response to the public consultation on that budget, 60% of respondents disagreed with the proposed closing times that have been introduced. Many staff have had their hours reduced, and some have left, which is a sad loss of valued and experienced people.
The Labour group in BCP council spoke against those cuts, particularly as the library strategy was yet to be published. It argued against the closures and changes to opening times and asked for a far more strategic approach, while acknowledging the funding pressures. Trying to be proactive and solutions-focused, the group said that no two neighbouring libraries should be closed on the same days at the same times and that we should see libraries as community hubs rather than just lenders of books.
That speaks to the challenge faced by our public library system. Although providing a library service is a key statutory function for councils, the quality and quantity of that service is up to the council; it is dependent on the funding that the council makes available. When we have such a crisis in social care, which is increasing the cost that councils have to bear, those who fall behind will be people who use libraries. We need a radical solution to social care and local government funding, which I know is beyond the Minister’s remit, but it is part of thinking strategically about what local councils mean in this day and age and what role libraries play in the delivery of services by local councils.
I want to echo what many Members have said about libraries being a critical place for MPs to hold their surgeries. I have held my surgeries in Boscombe, Castlepoint, Charminster, Pokesdown and Southbourne, and Springbourne libraries. In fact, the only library I have not held a surgery in is Tuckton, because it is too small. In going to those libraries, meeting the staff and bringing constituents into them, I have seen just how loved those libraries are, not just as places that lend books but as places where people can get guidance, advice and support.
In conclusion, it is important that we provide the funding that libraries need, but it is also important that we provide the funding to councils with a clear definition of what their roles are, so that libraries do not lose out. I thank the dedicated librarians of Bournemouth East, and although we are talking about public libraries, I also thank the House of Commons Library, which is a brilliant institution that has served MPs well. I have benefited enormously from it, and every time I go in, I am greeted with a smile and a significant amount of knowledge, so I want to say a huge thank you to the House of Commons Library staff.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate. Public libraries are at the heart of our communities, and we urgently need a national strategy to protect and strengthen them.
In 2016, North Yorkshire council faced the devastating prospect of closing 31 libraries. Instead, communities were given the chance to step in—and they did. In Scarborough, we are really fortunate that the Newby and Scalby library was one of the lucky few, and that local volunteers formed a charity to keep it open. Today, it is thriving. It has 60 volunteers, including trustees, gardeners, cleaners and 40 library assistants.
In 2024 alone, those volunteers gave over 11,000 hours. Their dedication has led to 42,000 visits and 550 events for 6,000 attendees, and has helped 1,500 people with individual IT assistance, bus passes, passport applications and how to use a mobile phone. They also run a home library service. That is not just a library; it is vital social infrastructure. Earlier this year, I was honoured to attend the celebrations as the Newby and Scalby volunteers received the King’s award for voluntary service.
Although we must champion our community libraries, volunteers cannot be expected to keep them open indefinitely, especially as funding continues to shrink. According to the University of Warwick, library funding has fallen by more than half since 2010. Libraries are looking to the Government for a long-term plan that includes a sustainable funding model. I would be grateful if the Minister could address when the Government intend to implement the recommendations of the 2023 Sanderson review, including the establishment of a libraries laureate.
The title “libraries laureate” conjures up a Pied Piper figure, leading a trail of word-hungry children into the book corner, but it is, of course, nothing of the kind. They would be a high-profile, distinct voice who could advocate on behalf of libraries, and raise awareness of what books can provide and, as we have heard from many Members today, what libraries can provide beyond books. Libraries provide human contact in a world in which loneliness and the company of a smartphone are on the rise.
In the old days, people were fined when they had an overdue library book, but these days they can steal a library book and use it to write another book, or anything else. Library book borrowers cannot do that, of course, but if someone is the owner of an AI company, they can use books uploaded to the internet to train AI models. We must protect the rights of authors, otherwise we face a future short on not only libraries, but the creative working people who write the books that fill the shelves.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, can Members bear in mind that I want to give the sponsor the opportunity to wind up at the end?
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members for their passionate contributions. The Liberal Democrats believe in keeping libraries well funded and accessible, recognising their role in promoting literature, people skills and public wellbeing. Public libraries are some of the most beloved community services, and we are all painfully aware that despite the statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, many local authorities across the country have tried to find financial savings in this area.
Speaking as a lifelong councillor and a council leader, I know the hard choices that many local authorities are facing. Many will be trying to either consolidate library services, reduce opening hours or delay important building repairs. Research by the BBC suggests that at least 190 libraries in the UK have closed in the last five years, and the potential long-term consequences are troubling. Shockingly, the UK has one of the lowest rankings for teenage literacy among OECD countries, which affects the personal attainment and life chances of young people. It is in a library that many children first learn that books can be chosen and read for fun, not just assigned for homework by a teacher.
The last Government’s independent review of public libraries, published in 2023, highlighted a lack of awareness of what libraries achieve, not just among the public but across local and national Government, which is compounded by a lack of adequate reporting on their good work. Libraries are vital to many marginalised adults in our society, including the elderly, those living in poverty or in social isolation, the unemployed or those with limited digital and literacy skills. They offer somewhere that is free to use, safe and easily accessible with a wealth of important information on everything from jobseeking to medical advice. The library is a lifeline.
I have not mentioned all the adopted uses of libraries: as a venue for a vast range of community events, support groups, employment workshops, live music, art and craft activities, flexible working spaces, and access to the internet and public records, among many other functions. Braunton library in my constituency of South Devon recently won south-west England’s library of the year award at the British Book Awards. Among the features that make the library stand out is reading initiatives, its popular children’s Lego club, social groups like “knit and natter”, and an Arts Council project called “The Gatherers” which brought local people and resettled Afghan families into a flower-collecting society to break down language and cultural barriers and help to integrate people more fully into British society.
As Liberal Democrats, we welcome the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s announcement in February of an additional £5.5 million for the libraries improvement fund, but it is likely that other Departments owe a debt of gratitude to public libraries that is not fully recognised. Even a small public library such as Braunton library holds over 300 community events annually. That is a typical example of the way public libraries are being asked to pick up ever wider duties from other public services. In England, 30% of adults aged 16 and over—around 13 million adults—have used a public library in the past 12 months; 27% of them brought a child with them, and the most recent figures suggest as that many as two thirds of all children in England visit a library at least once a year.
Our libraries are a public service with a colossal reach into communities. They represent people who sometimes have a very quiet voice in public debates. The Liberal Democrats would be open and flexible to ensuring a sustainable funding solution, including a review of the good causes eligible for lottery funding and possible mechanisms for library endowments. Libraries support lifelong learning and social cohesion, yet they are being asked to do far more with far less. We must ensure that in the future, the funding of libraries reflects the increasing diversity of the roles they fulfil.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship again today, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate. It is great to hear from Members from across the House and across the country, and I thank them for championing libraries in their constituencies.
Libraries matter; they are one of the few places in public life where people of all ages and backgrounds are welcomed in without cost or condition. Whether it is a child discovering books for the first time, students revising for exams, pensioners playing bridge or Scrabble, or those needing digital support or wi-fi to apply for jobs, libraries quietly meet a range of needs every single day. Baroness Sanderson put it very well in the other place:
“no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC128.]—
well, apart from maybe to return your book on time.
That civic spirit, quiet, constant and universal, defines the best of what public services should be, and demand for libraries nationally continues to highlight this popular public service. Recent published data from DCMS highlights that nearly one in three adults in England—around 13.7 million people—have used a library in the last year. As we all know, libraries are a statutory service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and rightly so, but how they are delivered is a matter for local councils. That is consistent with the principles that we Conservatives believe in: local services delivered by local people, community engagement, and fiscal responsibility.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the challenges of funding and provision that local authorities and libraries face. As a former local councillor, I understand the scale of those challenges for many councils, and the new duties and demands on precious resources, but it is not all doom and gloom, as my home area has demonstrated. In my borough of Bexley, the Conservative-run council has built two new state-of-the-art libraries, in Sidcup and Thamesmead. The Sidcup library on the high street has been extremely popular since its opening, with a new cinema, and was very busy when I visited on Saturday to view the fantastic VE Day display arranged by the Lamorbey and Sidcup local history society, alongside brilliant local archive and history volunteers. Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling was home to Roald Dahl for part of his life, as it was for other creative talent such as Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and, perhaps most famous, Gary Oldman, who portrayed Winston Churchill in the motion picture “Darkest Hour”. Lots of entertainment for readers and film fans comes from Bexley, and I hope many will enjoy it during this summer’s reading challenge. I am happy to support the people taking part in that this year in our libraries.
Councils across the country have adapted creatively to the challenging backdrop for libraries in the online age. From traditional council-run libraries to commissioned trusts and community-supported services, delivery models have evolved, but the mission remains unchanged: to provide a comprehensive and efficient service that meets the needs of local people. I take this opportunity to thank all library professionals around the country, but particularly those in Bexley and the House of Commons Library, and the incredible volunteers at Blackfen community library in my constituency, which has gone from strength to strength since opening as a real community hub in Blackfen. I am proud to support it throughout the year.
That library and the new Sidcup library on the high street highlight the powerful role that libraries can play in generating local economic activity and footfall in town centres. That point has not been made much today, but it is important. In government, the Conservatives supported that evolution. Through the libraries improvement fund, we invested more than £20 million to help modernise buildings, improve digital access and ensure that libraries remained fit for purpose in the 21st century. We commissioned the independent review of English public libraries, excellently led by Baroness Sanderson, which laid out a practical vision for renewal through stronger data, better branding, wider membership and deeper community connections. We supported the idea of a universal library card, a national data hub and closer alignment with institutions such as the British Library to strengthen the sector’s long-term sustainability. This is not about centralisation; it is about enabling the sector to thrive by giving it the tools, visibility and consistency it needs.
We must acknowledge the vital role that libraries played during the coronavirus outbreak, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned. They moved swiftly online, offering ebooks, streamed activities and virtual learning. In the most difficult circumstances, libraries kept people connected to culture, community and one another.
We must be honest though. We understand that local councils face financial pressures, which are being made worse by the Government’s Budget decisions. Bexley council is already £5 million worse off this year, so it has to make more difficult decisions. I encourage councils in that situation to look at the community library model, which has worked well in my constituency and has prevented closures. We must help councils to protect core services while encouraging partnerships, co-location with other services and volunteer engagement where appropriate. I urge the Government to build on the momentum of the cross-party Sanderson review, which provided a road map that balances modernisation with the values that have always underpinned public libraries: access, education, community and trust.
It is disappointing that a refreshed public libraries strategy was not published before last year’s general election, but I am sure the Minister agrees that that work must not be lost. This is why we are disappointed that the Minister, Baroness Twycross, has so far avoided giving a direct answer to a direct question on this matter, so I ask the Minister here today: when will his Department publish a strategy for English public libraries, as many Members have called for? I know he understands the need for a new strategy that is informed by data, rooted in localism and underpinned by a longer term vision for this essential local provision. That would allow libraries not just to survive but to flourish in the years ahead.
Members on both sides of this House believe in the quiet power of public libraries to educate and inspire, and we stand ready to work across the House to ensure their future is every bit as valuable as their past.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It is a delight, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will not comment on how well dressed you are today.
It is a great delight to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing it. He talked a bit about the history of libraries. I absolutely adore a library. I have used the British Library many times, when it was in its old place in the British Museum and in the new building—still new to me, that is; younger people here will not remember its old place. I have used the London Library and libraries in Worcester, Stoke, Manchester, Birmingham, Southwark, Newcastle, Oxford and Cambridge. I have used Lambeth Palace library, as well as libraries in Cardiff, Treorchy and Porth. I absolutely adore using libraries. Many hon. Members mentioned their constituencies, but I agree with the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis Borges, who said,
“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire made several points about titles. Being in two Departments, I have many bits in my title,. Sometimes people say we should have a tourism Minister, a this Minister or a that Minister. The real question is whether we engage sufficiently with the sector and get the work done. I know that Baroness Twycross, who took over these responsibilities from me relatively recently, is very engaged in this work. I want to give her space to lay out what she will be able to achieve and the work she is engaged in, before we start talking about titles and reassignment.
Responding to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) puts me in a slight difficulty. Quite a few hon. Members referred to things that are extremely devolved. Libraries are fundamentally devolved responsibilities. The hon. Member made extremely good points about how libraries can help with mental health and health generally and issues such as loneliness, but I am not going to tell people in Northern Ireland how to run the library service. If I did, I would suddenly get an email and a demand for a meeting, so I will be careful.
That also applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). There is a competition in size of constituencies going on today. I know areas of my hon. Friend’s constituency well because I was—arguably—educated partly in Stirling. I note that Bannockburn library is closed today. When libraries are closed or open is a financial issue, which is tough for many local authorities. I was a councillor in Hackney a long time ago and know how difficult it is for local councillors making tough financial decisions, desperate to keep libraries open every day if possible, but struggling to do so.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to Andrew Carnegie, who was an extraordinary donor and investor in libraries. As the MP for a former mining constituency, I am aware that mining communities often had to do for themselves. The miners’ unions and trade unions played an important part in ensuring that their members learned how to read. It was not just about being able to read “Alton Locke” by Charles Kingsley, one of the early Christian socialists, or “The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists” and other socialist tomes that were so important to the trade union movement. Libraries were a vital part of enabling the working classes to get on in life, so for Labour MPs, this debate has a particular piquancy.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) wants to reopen the library alongside the creative campus in Folkestone. When I visited on a day that was gorgeous sunny, though slightly windy, I was impressed by Tracey Emin’s discarded sock sculpture on the floor and other brilliant artworks around the town. I tried to pick up the sock, of course, because I thought it was litter, which was the whole point. Integration of all creative industries working together with the library service is a potent thing. The library building my hon. Friend referred to is beautiful. Had it been better looked after by Kent County Council in recent years, it would be more readily accessible and better preserved for the future. Like my hon. Friend, I hope very much that the library will reopen.
I am not sure about the statistic, mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, that there are more busts of Rabbie Burns than of anybody else. I am very happy if there are, but I suspect that there are more of Gladstone—there may even be more of Winston Churchill. None the less, he made the point about Carnegie. Of course, philanthropy is an important reason why we ended up with so many libraries around the UK. I want philanthropy to play an increasing part in the future. That is not because I want local authorities to walk away from their responsibilities, but simply because I applaud those philanthropists who gave away every single penny of the vast wealth that they made in their lifetimes. The more we can do to enable that, the better—not only for our libraries, but for our creative sector, museums and galleries, many of which, especially those associated with local authorities, are struggling in exactly the same way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) is a former councillor who has experienced some of the difficulties of trying to keep local authority libraries going. Incidentally, those difficulties affect not just local authority libraries, but libraries in universities and in so many other public institutions. They have struggled to survive. Some of them are independent libraries. He made a good point about how important it is to diversify, and mentioned that one library in his patch has a gym. A few weeks ago, I was in Ogmore Vale, in my patch, where the library, gym and community function are all part of the same service; they are very much thought of in an integrated way. That is the pattern adopted by lots of local authorities, which sometimes still run the libraries in house, and sometimes decide to hand them over to a third party to allow for further financial investment.
The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) referred to the specialised advice that libraries may provide. Advice to businesses has not particularly featured in our debate, but it is an important part of what the British Library and many local libraries often provide. If someone wants to set up a business in a local area, they will need to understand that local area, and one of the most important facilities for that is the local library, which will have statistical advice. The library will want to help them in whatever way it can—with planning law or whatever it may be. Losing that aspect of what libraries provide would be bad for economic growth—our ability to grow not just in some parts of the UK but everywhere.
From the day I started as MP for the Rhondda in 2001, one of my strategies was to look at how many local businesses I had. People often think that the way to get more local jobs is to get one big business that will employ 1,000 or 2,000 people. Actually, in most constituencies, it is more effective to enable lots of small businesses to grow—to go from employing two people to employing five or 10 people. There are few areas where we can do that without libraries having a role to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) rightly referred to VE Day celebrations, in which libraries up and down the country played an important part, because of their important role in enabling and helping the community. Our libraries are sometimes associated with an archive facility, which has a particular value. British people, like people all around the world, love to explore their genealogy, so it is really important to make those archive facilities available to people. In a library, someone can investigate what their grandad or auntie did in the war, or where they lived, for free—something that they otherwise might have to pay for. I note that Hexham library has “Rhymetime” tomorrow morning at 10 am; on Saturday at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, it has “Ukrainian Stories”, which I think is a book launch.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) admitted to reading Nancy Drew mysteries, which I think were marketed primarily at girls. I read several, but I had a cover to hide the fact that it was Nancy Drew. Modern books for young adults and kids are very different and not specifically targeted at boys and girls. There has been a complete transformation in that market, and hurrah for that. I think it was Alexander Pope who said:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”.
This is one of the great things about libraries. Not only do they enable us to take our first step into reading, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, they enable us to move on from Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys to Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. I am sure that none of us—I think we can say this of every single Member—would have arrived here if we had never used a library, and none of us would have ended up as a Member of Parliament.
My hon. Friend was right, as others were, to pay tribute to the House of Commons Library. It has a slightly different role because it provides so much advice for us to inform our contributions to debates. It also has an awful lot of books, including some of mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) referred to the Data (Use and Access) Bill debate later, so I will leave the bit about copyright and AI for this afternoon’s debate when I will appear in a different capacity. She is absolutely right about volunteers. So many libraries either rely entirely, as community libraries, on volunteers to run them and keep them open, or have volunteers as part of a team. I pay tribute to all the people who have managed to keep libraries open. My father, who is no longer with us, lived in Alderney in his latter years. He and his wife loved spending a day as volunteers at the library. I think he quite liked the business of issuing fines—one of his favourite moments was when he found out that his next-door neighbour had not returned his book for 17 years or whatever. My hon. Friend is also right that libraries are a vital part of the social infrastructure.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) was also a councillor. I think councillors have a particular interest, as I have mentioned, and insights to bring to this debate. He referred to Braunton library and the 300 community events. That is mirrored in every single library up and down the land. No library is characterised by Ali MacGraw stuffiness. It is a place entirely open to the public. People have referred to the role of libraries during covid. They have also referred to them as non-judgmental spaces where people can simply just be, including in the winter. Sometimes it is a place to feel warmth, which is really important. One of my favourite moments in a library was a few years ago when I persuaded the British Museum to lend one of its articulated Japanese dragons to my library in Treorchy. I do not know whether we Welsh are just obsessed with dragons, but I remember seeing kids looking at that Japanese dragon and they were absolutely fascinated and loved it. That sense of enticing people into being curious is another aspect of why libraries can be so important.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) referred warmly to his experience in his constituency. I am going to bridle slightly because he referred to our Budget decisions. If we refer to the 14 years of Budget decisions that caused the difficulties facing the library service across the whole United Kingdom, we could be here a lot longer. The truth is that many local authorities have had a really tough time with their budgets cut year after year, and one of my anxieties was always that. One of the dangers for national Government is saying, “Right, we are going to tell local authorities to do more while giving them less money, because we—national Government—will not then have to make the cuts; somebody else has to.” That is a thing that happened to the library service over all those years.
I hate all the gloom about libraries. I hate it when people keep banging on about how all the libraries have closed and all the rest of it. The truth is that, as people have referred to, roughly a third of people in the UK have used a library at least once. I do not think that is an annual pilgrimage. Many of them will have used it repeatedly and there are people who go to the library every single day of the week, or every week.
Libraries are all about promoting and enabling reading. Sometimes we forget that role—if I could get every child in the country to read one extra book a year, would that not be a success in the end for them individually and for the economy? We have not referred to the publishing business in the UK, which is an important part of our creative industries. We export more books than any other country in the world, and I want to keep it like that.
We have referred to libraries as community spaces. I have also referred to their archive responsibilities and how important those are for many people. Libraries are constantly evolving: 47 libraries in Norfolk provide a service to weigh babies and, as I understand it, in Devon they provide 3D printers. I and many other Members have referred to libraries that are doing innovative and fascinating new things all the time.
Last year, upper-tier local authorities spent £694 million on libraries in England.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is such an impatient man—it is not as if his party did not have 14 years to produce a national strategy, or anything like that. One of the asks was about titles, and one of the others was about whether there should be a national strategy. As I said earlier, I am keen to allow Baroness Twycross, who has only recently taken on responsibilities in that area, to go where she wants to on this.
One of the difficulties with a national strategy is that so much is devolved. Of course, we try to foster good relations with our Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts, and there is a regular get-together with the devolved Administrations to promote that, but a lot of these decisions are made by local authorities and in other Departments. When local authorities and Departments get only an annual settlement, rather than a three-year settlement, it makes it much more difficult for them to make coherent, long-term decisions. I hope that we will change that in the spending review—that is one of the things I hope will help with funding. However, I have no idea what budget allocations there will be for independent Departments. So I am somewhat resisting the idea of a national strategy. At the moment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is already producing three or four national strategies on different subjects, so I am hesitant to advance down that route.
The Sanderson report made key recommendations, many of them not for Government at all, but for the sector. We are keen to see those play out and be adopted wherever possible. We are working with the sector and with Arts Council England, which has a specific responsibility in relation to libraries in England.
Several hon. Members have referred to the amount of money—£5.5 million—that we have set aside this year for improving libraries. We also have a superintending role. The 1964 legislation was deliberately drafted in a rather ambiguous way, which is one of the issues we always face. In ’24-25 we engaged with 53 local authorities in a superintending role, and we have engaged with seven since April this year.
As Members have said, 276 libraries closed between 2010 and 2023. We do want to make that closure process stop because we believe passionately in libraries.
Jonathan Davies
I thank colleagues from across the House for contributing to this important debate. We have heard stories of how libraries have transformed individuals’ lives. I was particularly moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), and many other colleagues across the House, said. We have learned a lot, but we have also had some lighter moments about the role that libraries play.
I know that ministerial responsibilities have changed and that there is no mechanism to get Baroness Twycross to come here, but I would be grateful if the Minister made sure that she has heard what has been said in this debate.
We have not had a commitment to a national strategy today. A lot of good work is coming through, but there are aspects of the Sanderson review that are valuable, and I believe that many of those aspects could be implemented very cheaply or at almost no cost. That might be something that the sector could do itself, but with the help of the convening power of the Government.
I would be grateful if the messages we have heard from across the House get to Baroness Twycross and if, a little bit further down the line, when the Department has had more time to chew this over and she has had time to embed herself in her role, we revisited the subject to see what progress has been made.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Rebalancing Regional Economies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If you do not have that permission, do not try to speak. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. I also remind Members that the debate is only half an hour; if the Member in charge does take interventions, bear in mind that the Minister also has to respond.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of rebalancing regional economies.
It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. This Government have rightly prioritised growth, devolution and the need for growth to be seen in all regions and nations. Last year’s Budget and this year’s spring statement freed up £113 billion of infrastructure investment. Huge amounts of work are being done to develop industrial strategies that will drive forward key sectors. We have new trade deals, and have seen the corporate world commit record levels of investment in renewable energy, artificial intelligence and many more sectors.
Brilliant stuff—but what does it actually mean to the people of Rossendale and Darwen, Blackpool, Winsford, Macclesfield, or Cornwall? Clearly not much yet, given the kicking we got in the local elections. These small towns and coastal communities are the places where productivity is lowest.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My constituency is both rural and coastal, which presents a unique set of challenges in terms of deprivation and neglect. Urban areas often receive targeted investment, but rural and coastal communities can be overlooked. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must adopt a tailored approach, taking into account the rural premium in the index of multiple deprivation, to specifically address the distinct needs of such areas and unlock their significant economic potential?
Andy MacNae
I agree with the hon. Member; her point is largely the thrust of my speech, so hopefully I will align with her thinking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is absolutely right about regional rebalancing of the economies. From a Northern Irish perspective, I can encourage him that Invest Northern Ireland has decided to relocate many of its upcoming businesses outside the Belfast metropolitan area, as a way of moving forward, but does he agree that location can never overtake viability in the economy?
Andy MacNae
Absolutely. That is the essence of growth for all. It is about going beyond location and beyond geography as a determinant, and getting the right outcomes for everyone. Our small towns and coastal communities are where productivity is lowest, and where the cost of living and housing crises have hit hardest. They have been left out and let down for so long that it is no wonder trust and expectation are so low—but those are the places where the next election will be won or lost, and where this Government must deliver for our communities if we are to live up to our promises.
To mean something to Rossendale and Darwen, and to places like it, growth must translate into real and tangible change in every neighbourhood. It must mean good jobs and accessible opportunities for young people where they live. It must mean that our towns feel clean and safe, and that people have the houses they need. It must mean that our small and medium-sized businesses thrive and put more money in people’s pockets. It must mean that our roads, buses and rail systems actually connect to where people need to go.
I think we all get that—I certainly know the Minister does—but what worries me is that, when it comes to actual decision making, too often the investment planning defaults to big cities and existing growth areas, with the role of small towns seemingly reduced to just feeding people into the great city machine. Indeed, it can often be a presumption that the answer for small towns is nothing more than better transport into a city. Such thinking totally misses the point.
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he welcome the news announced today that 12,000 civil servants will move out of London and into the regions to work on exactly these issues? Would he recommend that some of the civil servants moving to the west midlands should come from the Department for Business and Trade, so they can focus on the automotive sectors, the defence sectors and the advanced manufacturing that really make our region great?
Andy MacNae
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, that movement out into the regions is vital; a thrust throughout this debate is the understanding of regional and local realities. That movement can only be welcomed, and it should be as broad as it possibly can be.
Chris McDonald
I was very exercised by my hon. Friend’s point about “feeding people” from small towns into cities—a very patronising view espoused by ill-informed lobby groups such as the Centre for Cities. Does he agree that that view denies the reality: that people who live in towns want their towns to be successful and have real pride in their towns, including places such as Stockton, Billingham and Norton in my constituency? That success is good for the country, good for those towns and good for the people who live in them.
Andy MacNae
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. It is the pride that we have in our towns that really matters. Good things should happen in our towns, not just in some distant city that only a tiny proportion of people in a town might be lucky enough to be able to travel to. That includes pride in our neighbourhoods; neighbourhoods are important to their residents.
Having said that, I do not deny for a moment that cities are our economic engines and that we desperately need to address the productivity gap between our regional centres and London—but, as we have said, this process cannot just be about the cities and the big towns. It matters little to the people of Bacup how well Manchester is doing. Instead, we need to see the good things happening in Manchester mirrored in places such as Bacup. That is the true test of whether we are delivering for all.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Greater Manchester has the fastest growing economy in the UK, with the most diverse range of sector strengths in the country, but despite that, Greater Manchester’s productivity is still 35% below London’s. Does he agree that we cannot rebalance our regional economies without major investments, such as the Northern Arc, which could double the size of the region’s economy in 30 years?
Andy MacNae
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is largely the point: we must rebalance our economies by bridging the productivity gap between our cities, including our northern cities, and the rest of the country. At the same time, though, we must make sure that that growth in cities such as Manchester, which in many ways is doing great, is felt in Lancashire and other places at the same time.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. My point is similar to that of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). We often discuss the rebalancing of regional economies in terms of urban versus rural or north versus south, but does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider more nuanced geographical and socioeconomic factors, including those of communities in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall, whose characteristics differ substantially from inland rural communities on issues such as non-resident population, the cost of beach safety, the ability to attract construction workers and, of course, a massive challenge with housing costs?
Andy MacNae
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the requirement for bespoke interventions is the thrust of the latter parts of my speech.
Whether places such as Bacup feel the benefit of Government interventions is a test for whether we are delivering growth for all. The last Government failed spectacularly in this challenge and, if we are to avoid the same fate, we must do things differently.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is now nearly 13 years since the Institute for Public Policy Research North published its landmark report, “Northern Prosperity is National Prosperity”, which set out in black and white the evidence that investing in the regions—all regions across the UK—is one of the best ways to achieve growth nationally. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is long past time that we devolved power and funding in order to create jobs in all our communities across the UK?
Andy MacNae
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I remember that brilliant report very well, and that process of devolution is a crucial element of getting this right.
What are the underlying issues and what can we do about them? It is perfectly understandable that, in looking for growth, we go first to places where it can be achieved most easily at scale and at the lowest cost. That is an instinct backed-up by long-established practices. We see it manifest in announcements around the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, the lower Thames crossing, Heathrow and Old Trafford.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
While I welcome the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, does my hon. Friend agree that extending it down to places such as Swindon would not only boost the economy in my region, but also the country?
Andy MacNae
Indeed; part of the thrust of my argument is that these growth corridors must extend into the areas that need them most, and I am sure that Swindon very much needs to be part of that mix. The focus on those easier areas is perfectly reasonable, but if we continue in this vein of only doing the big and easy things, all the money will be gone before we get anywhere near the likes of Rossendale and Darwen.
In places such as my home, delivering growth is not easy—it is complex and bespoke and needs sustained focus. There is rarely a silver bullet and, if there was one, it would be tough to deliver. But, if properly valued, the long-term benefits of doing the hard yards are huge not just in economic terms, but in terms of health, crime, housing, environment and general wellbeing. That is the rub: as things stand, too often we do not fully value these benefits, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Ministers make decisions and advisers advise. The Government guidance for investment is the Green Book, which sets out how decisions on major investment projects are appraised. It was last reviewed in 2020 and is subject to another review now. Despite a clear intent for that guidance to support regional rebalancing, it is clear that embedded practices too often default to over-reliance on simplistic and short-term cost-benefit ratios.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We have had debates on the Green Book in Westminster Hall before, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there is a real opportunity, in the Treasury’s review of its methodology, to drive growth in our regions and in constituencies such as mine. We should be valuing things such as investing in the tram-train between Manchester Piccadilly and Marple in a way that generates growth. Does he agree that that is an opportunity that the Government should seize?
Andy MacNae
I agree 100% with the hon. Lady. It is a huge opportunity, and I will come to the specifics around it very shortly.
Some Departments still require projects to surpass a certain benefit-cost threshold before the investment decision gets anywhere near a Minister’s desk. It is a statement of fact to say that that reliance on benefit-cost ratios favours better-off areas and quick wins, contributing to regional and sub-regional imbalance over many years. That issue does not stop with the Green Book—it is broader than that; I would argue that it can be summed up as the simple human temptation to take the quicker and easier option.
The problem has historically been compounded by a failure to join up investment thinking across Departments and geographical footprints—for instance, local regeneration funding not being linked to regional transport or housing strategy. The great failure of the last Government’s levelling-up programme was to abandon any sort of strategic approach and simply rely on bidding competitions and piecemeal sticking-plaster interventions determined by the likelihood of a good headline.
If we are really to see the benefits of growth in places such as Rossendale and Darwen, we need to address all that head-on. The Green Book and appraisal practice must change to properly value all impacts of investment in our small towns. We must ensure that all appraisal processes, including departmental models, follow the intent of that guidance. Green Book best practice must be updated to ensure that project funding is primarily based on strategic objectives, which may include aspects that cannot be valued quantitatively, rather than arbitrary forecasts. That must include ending all arbitrary benefit-cost ratio thresholds based on limited economic forecasting, replacing them with strengthened and broadened place-based systems of evaluation, with public transparency about the calculations.
Appraisals must recognise the long-term and interlinked nature of key interventions extending over the period by which the benefits are valued, and address the excessive discounting of long-term impacts. More fundamentally, our strategies must insist on doing the hard yards, while giving the fiscal flexibility, regulatory framework and sustained leadership to deliver effectively.
The question “What does this do for our most deprived and left-behind neighbourhoods?” should be embedded in every investment strategy and decision process. We should develop tests that seek to answer that question and by which we can judge investments. By insisting on truly holistic, place-based approaches designed to benefit all, we can deliver much more meaningful impact. In delivering that sort of approach, devolution and local leadership could and should play a vital role—but only if we do it right.
It has been well argued that to close national productivity gaps we need to focus investment through integrated settlements towards the cities and devolved authorities. With developed institutions and the greatest ability to get things done, I agree with that, but that is the relatively easy bit. We must also do the hard bit: such progress must be in parallel with targeted investment in deprived towns outside the immediate economic envelope of the city, in line with original strategy and founded on the principle of growth for all that cuts across devolved areas. That strategy must be supported by flexible funding and delivery capacity to respond to specific challenges and opportunities.
We cannot continue to justify Government investment flowing into the likes of Manchester while the towns of Lancashire do not even appear in the picture. As a practical example, take the TransPennine route upgrade—a major project that will transform connectivity between cities and major towns across the Pennines. It has been presented, in some quarters, as a transformational project for our region. However, if I ask, “What does this do for Rossendale and Darwen, or any small town on or near the route?”, the answer is, “Frankly, not much—all it does is take trains past us a bit quicker.”
Would we not rather think about the rail upgrade as one part of a wider project that enables a growth corridor, and in which we make a positive impact on small towns and rural areas in that corridor a fundamental requirement of the investment, for instance by insisting on local procurement, associated recruitment and skills programmes, investment and startup incentives, brownfield remediation, housing renewal, local transport improvements, public realm investment and so on?
Such an approach could be delivered through a partnership of Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire authorities, with mayors sharing accountability. It would require a fully place-based appraisal mechanism, flexible funding and long-term delivery capability. It should also be expected to bring in other agencies such as Homes England, Active Travel England and Historic England to provide additional leverage. By insisting on such an holistic approach, we could get something far more impactful, and bigger than the sum of its parts.
We have tried all this before with regional development agencies, housing market renewal, the single regeneration budget, the new deal for communities programme, local enterprise growth initiatives, local enterprise partnerships and so on. Many of these things were great, but they never quite got there. Too often programmes would retreat into doing the same easy thing over and over again, lose strategic focus and just deliver a lot of nice-to-haves or be pulled back into spending orthodoxies by risk-averse oversight. As Gordon Brown reflected—I will not do a Scottish accent:
“The frustration is that we haven’t made enough progress. Given the deindustrialisation of Britain, we haven’t managed to find a way to generate the kind of growth and wealth in the areas of the country that were at the heart of the first Industrial Revolution.”
This Government, who were elected by those very areas, must again take up that challenge.
For too long, geography has meant destiny. Small towns such as Bacup, Whitworth, Rawtenstall and Darwen have been at the back of the queue and left behind, as others shout louder and seemingly offer easier solutions. Our decision-making process has compounded that and left our communities behind. We must change the game. Our new default must be to put our left-behind neighbourhoods first. We must learn the lessons of the past and not allow established orthodoxies and a desire for easy wins to stand in the way. In the end, we simply cannot afford to fail those communities that need us most.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It was a pleasure to hear the outstanding contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I am grateful to him for securing the debate, and I am grateful to my colleagues who have come and found a way to contribute to it as well. This is a very important debate. The frustration over the imbalances both between and within regions is felt locally, whether it is in Teesside or Cornwall or anywhere in between, so it is right that colleagues are interested in this.
I have a whole argument to set out, but instinctively I will start with something I have said for a number of years, both when I shadowed this brief in opposition and throughout my time in government—something, most importantly, that the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions: we see the fundamental transfer of power and resources from this place to local communities as a huge priority for this Government. We do that because we believe it is right that people should have a stronger say over their future, be it their economic future, their social future or the future of the fabric of their community, but we also strongly believe that that is what delivers.
It is right that the No. 1 mission for this Government is growth, but if we are to get that, the heart of our growth mission must be making sure that everybody has good opportunities, and that prosperity is spread across the UK. This is hard to say, especially as a Minister, but also from Westminster itself: it is an inside job. When I became the Minister for local growth, a job I loved doing, I did not walk through a sheep dip that gave me omniscience over Lancashire, Teesside, the west Midlands or Halesowen. The experts are my hon. Friends, but more importantly they are their constituents. My role—and our job as a Government—is to get those resources and powers out to them, so that they can change their communities and shape their economic futures. That is an important and huge goal.
It is very hard not to get into a conversation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) says, about either north or south, urban or rural and city or town, and that is a feature of this debate. But certainly when it comes to growth across those areas outside London and the south-east that have had the hardest time over the past few decades, I do not see these things as either/or’s. I think they interlock.
Afzal Khan
This is an important debate. In Manchester, a shocking 11 children in a class of 30 are living in poverty, which we know impacts their development, experiences, education and mental health. We must ensure that the economy works for the people we serve, so does the Minister agree that tackling child poverty must be central to our plans for regional rebalancing, especially in areas such as Manchester Rusholme?
Alex Norris
I agree that child poverty is particularly cruel. It is cruel because of the hardship that those children grow up in, but it is also cruel because their potential is snuffed out before they have even had a chance, and we should want everybody to have a chance to play their role in their community. That speaks to the very important point that even within communities that are thriving, there are still some of those neighbourhoods. This is a conversation about towns, but it is also a conversation about neighbourhoods. The very poorest neighbourhoods exist in all parts of the country, and we should have a real neighbourhoods focus for how we tackle that.
As I said, I think that these things interlock. I make no apology for believing that there is an importance in ensuring that our cities thrive. If our largest 11 underperforming cities got to the national average, that would be worth £20.5 billion; to the Exchequer, it would be £63 billion of additional output. That is a huge prize. I am thinking about Belfast and the incredible success story that is going on there in banking and finance, in the creative industries and in tech generally. These are incredible opportunities, which have the potential to change that community and change lives.
However, it is right that colleagues here, such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), should ask, “But what does that mean for Newtownards? What does that mean for Coleraine? What does that mean for Ballymena?” Those conversations are very much in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen led us off in. We will as a Government—this has been part of the debate already today—look to back those projects that have a potentially transformative impact. Whether that involves the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge corridor or unlocking the growth potential of our cities, we are going to do those things. We think that that should be at the core of our industrial strategy. I am talking about backing places with potential for growth, and growth with a degree of speed as well. There is the clustering that is going on. I am thinking about Liverpool and Manchester and some of the technology clustering. We are going to back those things. We think that is the right thing to do. But I want to give colleagues a real assurance that our approach has a lot more than that, too. As I have said, it is about power and it is about resources.
With regard to the power piece, I am very proud of our devolution agenda. As a Government, we have built on what the previous Government did. They did good things in establishing the mayoralties that they did. We want that to go wider and deeper, which I will talk about in a second. In recent months, I have been working very closely with our mayors on the development of local growth plans, so that—again, in the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen says—rather than Ministers sitting in Whitehall with a map and working out where they think there might be some potential, we are saying to the leaders of those communities, “Get together with your community. Tell us where your economic future is. Tell us what the hurdles are to realising that economic future. Tell us what resources you need to deliver that economic future. We will agree those plans with you and we will back you. We will give you the power to do that. You can use tools, such as investment zones or freeports, but we want you to say what it takes.”
I am very pleased to say that as we get to the spending review this year, we will see those plans come out. Whether we are talking about the Liverpool city region, the east midlands—my area—the Greater Manchester combined authority, the west midlands or elsewhere, people will see emerging very exciting plans that will be about a new vision, a new understanding of where this country’s potential and opportunities are, because suddenly they will be popping up all over the country. I am really excited about that, but we need more people to be part of the settlement.
The devolution steps taken by previous Governments were good ones, but it could go much further, so we have made a commitment to a deeper devolution settlement—more powers across housing, planning, transport, energy, skills, employment support and more, so that locally those tools are there to shape place and to shape the economic future. I am delighted to say that Lancashire is soon to be part of this. We want more people to be in on that settlement because we think it delivers for their communities, so it is great that the Lancashire combined county authority is up and running. Of course, there are six areas in the devolution priority programme. That means that when those priorities are delivered and over the line, in addition to the devolution we have already, the proportion of England covered by devolution will rise to 77%, or just over 44 million people, by next May.
Alex Norris
I will shortly. That will cover the entirety of the north, which may well be the point that my hon. Friend wants to make.
Perran Moon
I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of devolving powers out of this place and into regions, but does the Minister agree that in certain parts of the country, namely Cornwall, it will be very difficult for the model that is designed within the English devolution Bill to apply? Does he agree that we need flexibility and a nuanced approach to those areas that are desperate for devolution but will not and cannot sign up to the model that is currently Government strategy?
Alex Norris
I recognise that Cornwall is different. That point is obviously established in multinational architecture as well. There is no doubt that there are differences in Cornwall. I know that my hon. Friend and his Cornish colleagues are making that case very strongly to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, and I am hearing that case as well. We know that that will continue. We need to have a programme that fits, and my hon. Friend will understand our need for coherence, too, but I appreciate the spirit in which he makes his point. I know there are differences in Cornwall, and those conversations will continue.
Luke Myer
Do the Government accept the subsidiarity principle wherein powers should not just sit at the mayoral level, but should be as close to the community as possible? That would empower our local authorities and communities themselves, rather than just creating structures that sit above communities and are distant from them.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend, with characteristic vigour, takes me to the next part of my argument. I do not see the finished devolution product being a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority. I think that transfer is an unalloyed good, but I do not think it is the whole job.
That is why I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen was the one who opened the debate. Our plan for neighbourhoods is a step in that direction—we are saying that we want money and power to be held at a neighbourhood level, to shape place. We think that is the second part of devolution. The first part probably gets the most public attention—creating new mayors and new structures creates a lot of interest. For me, the magic is in that next stage, which is where communities really take control for themselves—and of their future.
That is not just rhetoric from me; we have put our money where our mouths are. The £1.5 billion we have committed to the plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support for 75 areas over the next decade. It is hopefully a starting point. In April I had the pleasure of visiting two of the areas, Darwen and Rawtenstall, which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I was struck by the energy—my hon. Friend always has that characteristic energy, of course, but his former colleagues in local government had it too, as well as the neighbourhood board and all the folks who had come to play their role in that process. I was struck by how ambitious they were for their communities, and the plans they had. As I go around the UK talking to people, mentioning local growth and the plan for neighbourhoods, it is striking how they want to use the money to catalyse further investments in their communities.
Andy MacNae
This is all wonderful stuff, and obviously we are massively behind these plans, but does the Minister agree that in order to make the most of the plan for neighbourhoods, we must address the infrastructure constraints within the sub-regions—constraints that have traditionally held back our areas? In the case of Rawtenstall and many areas, it is the rail links. There is also the transport grid. There are so many aspects of this. We will only get the value for money out of our plan for neighbourhoods if we address the infrastructure around our areas, too.
Alex Norris
I agree with that. When I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I was struck by the fact that he is in a valley, and if anything is wrong with that road, everything is wrong with that road and everything grinds to a halt. Of course the plan cannot be seen in isolation.
I have only one minute left, and I want to cover the Green Book before I conclude. My hon. Friend made a very good case for updating the Green Book. As he said, a review is under way. That will ensure that the Green Book provides objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside of London and the south-east, meaning that investment in all regions gets a proper hearing and areas get proper backing for growth. I encourage colleagues to continue to talk to the Treasury, as I know they are doing, about what they want to see from a future Green Book to ensure that they are getting the investment they need in their communities.
There has been a lot of energy in this room; there is always a lot of energy in the room when we talk about local devolution and local leadership. We have huge untapped potential in this country, and what it takes to tap into that potential, and that desire for communities to take control of their future, is a Government who support the transfer of money and power from this place to them to allow them to shape place. I am really excited to be getting on with that job, and to be working with colleagues in doing so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. In the UK, the glass manufacturing sector supports more than 120,000 jobs, adding £2.2 billion to the economy each year. I am immensely proud to have Beatson Clark in my constituency, which has been manufacturing glass in Rotherham for more than 270 years. It is a key local employer, and the only remaining independent UK-owned glass container manufacturer. It is also the only company in the UK that still produces amber pharmaceutical glass. After adding in the supply chain, more than 2,000 people are dependent on Beatson Clark for their livelihood.
As we move to a fully circular economy, glass is the perfect packaging material. It is infinitely recyclable, does not lose quality over time and does not release harmful microplastics into products, including the human body or the environment at large. It is easily and widely recyclable, with no degradation as part of the recycling process. Bottle banks were first introduced in the UK in the 1970s. Glass that was collected then is most likely still in circulation today.
Glass manufacture is energy-intensive, but with electric and hybrid furnaces and readily available technology there is no reason why glass cannot be a net zero product in the not too distant future, especially with Government support with infrastructure and electricity costs, as per the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. Yet, because of the Government’s dogged decision to press ahead with extended producer responsibility, initiated by the previous Administration, we instead face the decimation of our domestic glass industry.
Job losses and the closure of sites are literally just around the corner. That is not the industry overreacting. British Glass has already received warnings from more than one beer and cider manufacturer that there is no future for glass in this country due to the EPR policy. EPR follows hot on the heels of a challenging few years for UK glass manufacturing. The energy crisis, increased costs and a reduction in trade tariffs from 6% to 0% since leaving the EU have made cheaper imported glass so much more attractive.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Holden’s Bottling company in my constituency has written to me with concerns about EPR, saying it makes the company simply uncompetitive. Does my hon. Friend agree that if EPR fees were calculated on volume not weight, it would incentivise using more sustainable materials such as glass over plastic?
Sarah Champion
I support my hon. Friend 100%. It is crazy that we are not doing that by volume, because glass is heavier. We are forcing people to move to lighter products, particularly plastic.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend also accept that because glass is heavier than other products, it costs more to recycle and transport? It may break during transport, so it is not the case that it is a more sustainable product.
Sarah Champion
I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look.
Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO2 emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme.
The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my pride in having a glassworks in Irvine in my constituency and in its many workers, including Mr Thomson, who lived next door to me in Auchenharvie Place when I was growing up. The Government must consider the concerns of the sector about the EPR and look at the evidence that has been supplied. And I urge the Minister to adopt the sensible solutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is suggesting today.
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The glass sector has always supported the principle behind EPR. It lobbied, on sound environmental and safety grounds, against inclusion in the deposit return scheme, knowing and accepting that that would mean the inclusion of all glass products in EPR. Yet the terms of EPR have seemingly been deliberately stacked against the sector.
It is not only glass manufacturers who will be hit hard by this change. Indeed, since being granted this debate I have been inundated with messages from organisations worried about the impact of EPR.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the implementation of EPR avoids unintended consequences for businesses such as pubs, which are already facing huge headwinds? In many cases, pubs already manage their packaging waste through commercial contracts, so they would face double the levy.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.
Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.
Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Like her, I have heard from the British Beer and Pub Association, and I have also heard from several of the pubs in my constituency of West Dorset. The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the increase per bottle on beer and cider will be between 5p and 7p. That comes on the back of increases in business rates—one of my local pubs, The George in West Bay, saw their business rates rise from £8,000 a year to £27,000 a year, with increased national insurance contributions on top. If we want to keep village pubs, we need to support them and not keep taxing them.
Sarah Champion
I agree 100%. These consequences —one hopes that they are unintended consequences—are the stark evidence that has been put to the Minister, but seemingly it is not making any difference.
I go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made. EPR is intended to apply to household waste only. As pubs and similar businesses already pay for their packaging waste collection via commercial contracts, they are being charged double.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is pointing out the double counting and the effect of EPR. I have 19 pubs and Fuller’s brewery in my constituency, and they employ about 4,000 people. With all the other pressures on pubs and the hospitality industry at the moment, this is a bridge too far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to reconsider this?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with my hon. Friend: the Government need to pause, and I will go on to argue why they need to do that.
One of the problems is that packaging producers are unable to exclude these products from their EPR liability. There is no way out for pubs and hospitality businesses other than to pay. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said:
“Defra’s new rules do not work, and the vast majority of bottles sold in hospitality will pay EPR fees, completely unfairly. Defra are aware of their mistake but have admitted the issue would not be prioritised.”
Why? For brewers, the cost of glass beer bottle packaging is estimated to be more than £150 million per year. These additional costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. The Government themselves estimate that 85% of EPR costs will fall on the end user. With the public already facing stubbornly high costs of living and inflationary pressure, I cannot comprehend why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is proceeding with a policy that its own analysis suggests may not meaningfully improve recycling rates. I urge the Minister to change course and step away from this madness.
Let us look in detail at this flawed scheme. The exact methodology for calculating EPR has still not been fully shared, even though it came into effect last month. The process to date has been far from transparent. Based on current illustrative fees, glass is liable for around 30% of EPR costs, while only representing around 5% of in-scope material by volume. That is because fees are calculated by weight, not volume. Glass, as a relatively heavy material, suffers unfairly because of that, yet volume is the limiting factor when collecting and processing waste, not weight.
British Glass has raised several areas that it believes are incorrect in the methodology for calculating the base fees, but it has received no certainty from DEFRA that these will be reflected in the final fees. I am aware that other packaging trade associations have serious concerns about the methodology used to create the base fees. The fee for glass currently stands at £240 per tonne, which equates to around 10p per glass bottle—significantly higher than under similar schemes in Europe.
Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as having a good example of a successful EPR scheme. In Germany, the fee stands at £24, or €28, per tonne of glass. I appreciate that collection methods are different in Europe so the comparison is not exact, but are we seriously expected to believe it costs 10 times as much to collect and process glass in the UK as it does in Germany?
The policy makes even less sense when we consider that brands and retailers do not buy packaging by weight, but by unit. That is why it is essential to have an EPR fee that takes into account unit numbers. Recyclable glass can be 20 times heavier than less recyclable packaging, resulting in vastly disproportionate EPR fees on glass.
When I raised these issues previously, the Minister acknowledged that the per-unit impact on glass is higher than for other materials, yet the Government have failed to address that, calling into question their repeated claim that the policy is material-neutral. That is simply not true. Glass is being penalised. The implementation of EPR leaves glass at the mercy of its competitors. Glass beverage containers have been subject to EPR fees since the start of April 2025. Competing materials such as aluminium and plastic will face no policy fees until the introduction of the DRS in, at the earliest, October 2027.
Sarah Champion
Not at the moment.
In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass.
This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.
Sarah Champion
I am sorry, no.
In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme.
DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs?
For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain.
The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board.
DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both?
This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs.
On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports.
I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have approximately 39 minutes before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, and eight Members who wish to speak, so I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Could hon. Members speak to the time, or slightly less? If there are interventions, I will have to reduce that limit.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and I congratulate her on opening it with such a comprehensive description of the issues that the industry is facing. I will start by declaring an interest, because my husband is the finance director of a wine merchant. I assure hon. Members that the impact of EPR on the wine industry has been described to me on many occasions—it is causing such great concern.
North Shropshire has a number of excellent breweries, in addition to wine merchants, including Joule’s, Stonehouse and Salopian. In fact, Salopian had one of its excellent products, Shropshire Gold, in Strangers Bar two weeks ago—I hope that everybody had an opportunity to sample it. The pubs that the breweries supply are at the heart of our rural communities, and are fundamental to both village and market town life.
The hospitality and drinks industry are facing a number of headwinds, and the EPR scheme threatens to have a devastating effect on them. We recognise that the principle of applying a levy to those products to encourage producers to reduce the amount of packaging, and unnecessary packaging, is absolutely sound. There are significant concerns with the EPR scheme, however, and it causes a significant issue for the industry.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This is an important debate. I am lucky to have Robinsons Brewery in my constituency, as well as a number of pubs and the excellent bottling and packaging plant in the Bredbury industrial estate. They have been in touch with me about this issue, because they already pay for commercial waste collection and packaging recovery notes, and the threat of EPR will cost them an additional £500,000. The scheme is not only costly, but complex—does my hon. Friend agree that one of the concerns is unnecessary complexity, and that should be looked at?
Helen Morgan
I totally agree with my hon. Friend: the continuation of the PRN scheme alongside the EPR scheme is one consideration.
We need to protect local and high street businesses. The lack of clear information about what the levy will be is really problematic. Since September 2024, the price has been estimated at between £110 and £330 per tonne—a huge variation. Businesses cannot plan their cash flow and how much they need to accrue without at least some certainty about the levy that will be introduced on a scheme that is already in place. I urge the Minister to nail down that final amount as quickly as possible, so that there is certainty for managing this difficult situation.
There is an enormous amount of bureaucracy involved in calculating the amount of packaging. For example, an importer of wine bottles sells bottles to the on-trade and the off-trade. Although the importer can make good assumptions about the off-trade, where people buy bottles for personal consumption, they have no idea what happens when bottles go to the on-trade—they have lost control, so how do they realistically accrue?
Some of DEFRA’s assumptions are not helpful, such as that a bottle of wine or beer bought from a pub will end up being recycled by the council just because it cannot be proven that the person who bought it did not take it home with them. That seems insane. Most pubs are paying huge amounts of money to get their waste recycled privately and they are not costing the council anything, but the producer—the importer of the product—is now having to charge them. They will be paying twice, which is not sustainable for most local pubs.
Small pubs will have to pay about £350 or more a year, a medium-sized pub will have to pay around £750 and larger ones will have to pay £2,000, on top of their excessive business rates. It is important to remember that pubs cannot absorb that, because of their tiny margins, so 85% of those costs are likely to be passed on to consumers anyway. The idea that the producer pays is not going to work in this instance because pubs cannot change the packaging they use, so the consumer will end up paying, which is extremely problematic. The cost will be about 5p to 7p on every bottle of beer and around 15p on a bottle of wine; that might not seem like a great increase for a one-off purchase, but it will cost consumers an extra £154 million a year to buy bottled beer, which is quite considerable.
It is crucial that businesses are supported in transitioning to this scheme, because they are already struggling with the employer’s national insurance hike, the business rate increase and, for wine merchants, the changes to the way that duty is paid. I call on the Minister to take a sensible, common-sense approach to this issue and to consider an exemption from EPR for pubs. We should also reconsider the scope and timeline of its implementation, because we are at risk of delivering a crippling blow to hospitality and the drinks industry, which are already struggling with huge headwinds.
In the time that I have left, I will mention the example of a wine merchant—Members may wonder how I know this information. The wine merchant in question has a turnover of £25 million and makes profits of only £500,000 a year. That is a 5% profit margin, and this wine merchant is unusual in that it is quite profitable. EPR is estimated to cost it £272,000, more than 50% of its current profit margin, so there is no way that it will be able to avoid passing that on to the pubs and the consumers that buy from it.
The increase in national insurance will cost the wine merchant £92,000, and the ABV changes a further £262,000. It is a highly profitable and successful business of enormous longevity, but there may be no alternative for it other than putting up prices and laying people off. I urge the Minister to take into account these really serious concerns about the viability of businesses and to reconsider the implementation of this tax.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.
In the 10 months since I was elected MP for Ealing Southall, one issue has been raised with me more than any other: litter and fly-tipping. That is why I have made it my business as an MP to campaign on the issue, and that is why I welcome the extended producer responsibility regulations. They sound complicated, but they mean that the businesses that make the packaging that ends up on our streets and in our parks need to pay for that packaging to be recycled or disposed of. It is the polluter pays principle, and it makes complete sense to my constituents in Ealing Southall.
Up to now, local councils have had to pay the full cost of getting rid of that rubbish, and that means it is actually local council tax payers who foot the bill. That is not fair, and I know that my constituents will welcome the businesses that produce the packaging finally being forced to pay for it. When they buy a SIM card on the internet, they wonder why it comes with so much plastic and paper packaging. The new system means that businesses will face extra costs for that, which will give them a reason to reduce packaging, taking rubbish out of the system in the first place. For my constituents, that will mean less cardboard and plastic strewn on our streets.
The new system will also mean that Ealing council will now get an extra £4.7 million this year from the levy. It sounds like a lot of money, but in fact it costs £30 million every year to collect and get rid of all our rubbish. It is only right that the people who produce the rubbish should have to pay at least some of that massive cost.
Sarah Champion
Will my hon. Friend please assure her constituents that the whole sector supports EPR, but that, because of the two-year lag, there will be more plastic on her streets, not less?
Deirdre Costigan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am afraid that the glass industry is perpetuating some of these untruths, and it just needs to get on board with the policy—it constantly wants to delay, but we need to make EPR happen now.
The glass industry says that it does not support the policy and that glass is more recyclable than other products. Let it tell that to my constituents, who see glass bottles in black sack fly-tips in parks, or dropped in little piles on streets where people have been street drinking, every day. In fact, just 43% of glass is recycled back into bottles. The glass industry also says that glass is being treated unfairly compared with plastic and cans, but plastic and cans will be included in the deposit return scheme, as we have already heard. Glass had the opportunity to be part of the scheme and the industry lobbied hard not be included. I congratulate it—it did a good job—but it cannot get off scot-free. It is either part of the reverse vending machine plan or part of the “polluter pays” system that we are talking about today. It has to be in one or the other—it creates litter and it must pay for the cost of clearing it up. Council tax payers cannot be left to continue picking up the tab.
The glass industry also says that it is being charged more than it should be, because the fees are based on weight. As I have said, weight is important: the heavier a product is, the more it costs to transport for recycling. It is also breakable, which increases the cost further, and glass costs a lot more to recycle, both in money and in carbon, as the heat has to be so high. Recycled glass bottles use 75% of the energy needed to make new bottles, compared with just 15% for reuse. The charges in the plan are based on the estimated costs to councils of recycling glass, and the industry needs to understand that. Glass really does need to come up with a sustainable plan for reuse, rather than arguing against the tide of the “polluter pays” principle.
I know the published fees are still in draft so that the Minister and her Department can ensure they are fair and based on actual costs. I have a lot of sympathy for the pub and restaurant businesses that might be affected, but the Department is looking in detail at some of the points raised, so I am sure a sensible solution will be found. It is important to emphasise that clean streets are vital for pubs and restaurants—they will not make money if no one wants to go to their mucky town centre.
The final argument from the industry is that it does not think the fees it pays will be spent on waste and recycling. I have heard that a lot, but already my local council in Ealing is making plans to spend some of the money on cracking down on fly-tipping. It will use CCTV by Southall common and treat fly-tipping as an environmental crime with police tape and a cordon, based on work by Keep Britain Tidy. Ealing council also has plans to open a new reuse centre in Acton.
There are calls from the glass industry, as we have heard, to delay the “polluter pays” levy, but I strongly urge the Minister to resist those calls. The previous Government delayed taking action, which led to rubbish on our streets increasing by more than one third on their watch. People in Ealing Southall want cleaner streets. They are sick to death of bottles, cans, cardboard, mattresses, sofas and all the rest of it blighting their community. The Government have already shown they are deadly serious about making local areas feel loved again. Let us get on with sorting out the mess and bring in the new law to clean up our streets.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this really important debate so that we can collectively put pressure on the Government.
Times are hard. Things cost more and people are genuinely unhappy. What we do not want is to take away their beer or make it more expensive. The beer or pub sector in my constituency of Woking supports more than 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to Woking’s local economy. That is probably not surprising, as we are home to Asahi UK, a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name a few. Pubs are generally much more than just a business. They are hubs in our high streets and at the centre of our community life—places we go to watch a football match or take our grandparent on a Sunday afternoon to make sure they get out of the house. They are a fun place to drink pints with a few of your friends. Who here has been to the pub after a funeral, sharing stories about loved ones? I know I have, at The Cricketers in Horsell in my constituency. The core of what we are speaking about today is that pubs are really important places for people, and I am worried that the Government’s rules will undermine that.
In grief or in happiness, the British pub is an integral institution and always there for us—or so we hope; but the future of the pub is under threat. The Government’s poorly designed EPR scheme is a production tax in all but name, placing more than £100 million of new annual costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. The Liberal Democrats support the goal of making packaging and manufacturing more sustainable. We have long advocated improved recycling and a well-designed deposit return scheme, but the current approach to EPR risks doing more harm than good. It heaps unpredictable and escalating costs on to producers great and small—whether that is Asahi or the small brewery in my constituency, Thurstons —without offering clarity or stability that businesses need to plan for the future. For local brewers or publicans already battling inflation and higher taxes, these additional costs affect jobs and investment. Disastrously, this cost is also passed on to people going down the pub or buying a bottle of what they fancy from a shop. In Woking, it means a direct hit to ordinary people already struggling with the cost of living crisis.
This issue extends beyond my constituency. What is worse, this scheme is supposed to apply only to household waste, but the way it is currently designed means that pubs are charged double. Despite already paying for commercial waste collection, they now face an additional £60 million burden across the sector, with some larger venues expected to pay up to £2,000 extra each year. Even the Government have acknowledged that that is a flaw, yet this will not be fixed until year three of the scheme. That delay is not acceptable. Why should a struggling local pub in Woking, or any other constituency for that matter, be forced to bear unnecessary costs for the next two years while the Government dither?
It gets worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has rightly classified EPR as a tax, yet businesses still lack the basic clarity around the final fees, the reporting rules or even whether they will be liable. Such uncertainty is paralysing for businesses already hurt by international or local events. How can small brewers or pubs make investment decisions when they do not know the rules of the game they will be playing or what the liabilities will be?
The impact of EPR extends beyond hospitality. Let us talk about glass, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did. More than 60% of glass packaging in the UK is produced domestically, but the EPR scheme risks pushing manufacturers to abandon glass altogether in favour of cheaper, less sustainable materials, such as our old friend plastic. We have seen similar schemes in the United States drive glass manufacturers out altogether. In the UK, more than 6,000 people work in the glass sector, and penalising them is the wrong thing to do. I therefore ask, urge and implore the Minister to commit to reviewing EPR in order to support the food and drink sector, especially in my Woking constituency. The Liberal Democrats and I support environmental initiatives, but not at the cost of local jobs, economic growth or the viability of businesses that hold our communities together. The Government must rethink this scheme.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate.
As the MP for Burton and Uttoxeter, I am proud to represent my hometown and the home of British brewing. As I have said many times in this house, Burton’s brewery heritage stretches back centuries, and our iconic breweries are known the world over not just for the quality of their beer, which I sample very regularly, but for the communities that they support and the skilled jobs that they sustain. Brewing is in our blood; it shapes our local economy, our identity and indeed the very character of our communities. When policies come forward that could affect the future of this proud industry, we must pay close attention. Extended producer responsibility is one such policy. The ambition behind it is good—we want to see more recycling, less waste and a greener future—but the way this policy is being introduced risks real harm to businesses that are already working very hard to do the right thing.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is right that nobody is against the principle of recycling or the aims we are trying to achieve, but the policy is having unintended consequences for many small brewers and small pubs, which have very tight overheads. In some cases, the cost of EPR is more than their total profit, which is why I hope the Government will look again and come back with a revised scheme.
Jacob Collier
Absolutely—I am just about to make that point. Under the current plans, brewers, particularly those using glass bottles, face more than £150 million a year in new charges. That is not a minor adjustment. For some producers it could be the difference between profit and loss, in a sector that is already under huge strain.
The impact does not stop at the brewery gate. Pubs, many of which already pay for their own commercial waste disposal, will be charged again under EPR. That double payment for the same waste will cost up to £2,000 a year for larger venues. While DEFRA has acknowledged that this is a flaw in the system, a fix is not expected for another two years. In the meantime, pubs will foot the bill.
EPR will have a direct impact in my constituency, which has the most brewing jobs of any constituency in the UK and is home to companies such as Punch and Greene King, and to brewers such as Molson Coors and Marston’s. The policy will stifle growth and investment at a time when they are the Government’s No. 1 mission. There is also confusion about how EPR should be classified. The Office for Budget Responsibility calls it a tax, whereas DEFRA calls it a levy.
That lack of clarity really matters. Businesses in my constituency and around the country need certainty to invest, plan and grow, and at the moment they do not have it. Perhaps most frustratingly of all, according to the Government’s own analysis these changes might not meaningfully improve recycling rates. We risk burdening brewers and pubs with new costs without a guarantee that EPR will actually deliver the environmental benefits that we want to see.
Nobody is asking for the goals of EPR to be abandoned, but we need to make sure that the system works for the environment and for British industry, local jobs and communities such as mine that depend on them. Burton’s brewers have survived wars, recessions and global pandemics. They can continue to thrive with the right support, but they cannot and should not be asked to carry an unfair burden. Will the Minister please listen to the industry and work together with us to get this right?
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We are running out of time, so I will reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I give a special thanks to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for setting the scene so well—Champion by name and champion by nature. Well done.
We are all aware of the need to be good stewards of this planet, and for that reason we have set ourselves goals and targets that I support. The hon. Lady raised the practicality of those goals—it is not that we do not agree with them; we all accept their principle, but the question is how we achieve them in a way that does not affect the businesses that will feel the pain the most. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I think she and I previously discussed this in a debate in the Chamber just before Christmas.
In Northern Ireland, as is becoming the norm, we have different recycling obligations. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023 amend the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 to update the glass remelt formula by increasing the proportion of glass packaging waste that producers must recycle by remelt by 3 percentage points to 75%.
We are all agreed on the need to have something. The packaging and packaging waste directive is included in annex 2 of the Windsor framework, about which the Minister and I spoke during our discussion in the Chamber. That means that the directive will continue to apply in Northern Ireland following the UK’s EU exit. It is currently anticipated that this will be the final year of the 2007 regulations being in force, with extended producer responsibility for packaging expected to be introduced this year. For the Hansard record, what discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Assembly—I know she has had them, but can we have that on record?
Over the past three years, the target for glass recycling has been stuck at 82%. Our local councils are doing a grand job with kerbside glass collection, and that has changed mindsets, including my own. Changing mindsets has been important, so that all glass goes into that small bin in the kitchen, then is taken down to the recycling centre or left at the end of the road for the council to collect. However, more can be done to ensure that packaging is made from recycled products when possible and financially viable. I believe that that is something that the phased scheme is capable of achieving.
The bottom line for me, as well as for the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), is ensuring that additional obligations on businesses are financially viable. I do not use that term lightly; I believe that a business should not have to choose between reasonable profit and meeting its obligations. Although the phasing in of the scheme has given a taster, I underline the concerns of the metal, food packaging and glass industry associations. My understanding is the same as that of the hon. Lady: the profit margin is as tight as it can be. If it is that tight, it will not take very much to throw businesses over the line and for them to find themselves in financial difficulties, so I thank the hon. Lady for that introduction.
The concern is that calculating base fees based on the weight of packaging will put a disproportionate cost burden on heavier materials and might cause a market distortion towards less environmentally friendly materials, which would go against many principles. Glass is one such sectors. I understand that the Government have indicated their willingness to assess the matter and I look to the Minister to provide assurance that that is, and will remain, the case.
We must ensure that our businesses can produce at a price point that is attractive, and not have people considering importation because of the massive variation in cost. We have no control whatsoever over recycling obligations for imports. We must meet the targets, but only by bringing businesses along with us, not by leaving them behind or giving them financial obligations that they will find hard to achieve. I know that that is the Minister’s desire, and it will hopefully be the aim for the coming years.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing such an important debate.
There are 51 pubs in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, supporting 1,280 local jobs and contributing more than £40 million to our local economy. However, I have heard repeatedly from breweries and pubs in my constituency that the extended producer responsibility for packaging will have a substantial cost implication for those pubs, particularly for the smaller ones, which struggle to absorb additional costs. Although the scheme covers household waste, most glass pub products are classified as household waste, and as such, they are not exempt from EPR fees. Pubs now face a double whammy, as they will have to pay EPR fees on top of the costs that they already pay for waste collection and recycling through private contracts. Although I greatly welcome plans to amend that in the coming years, in the meantime, large pubs face, on average, costs of £2,000 per year.
We know that brewers have slim profit margins already, at roughly 2p per bottle, so the EPR levy—or tax—threatens to eliminate those margins, and I worry that consumers will pay the brunt. In fact, the Government’s own analysis estimates that around 85% of EPR costs will be passed on to consumers. For bottled beer, that could mean an extra 5p to 7p per bottle—my Jim would really be annoyed about that. We risk driving up the cost of food and drink in our local pubs, potentially deterring customers and weakening the competitiveness of our sector.
Heineken supports several pubs in my constituency, including the Spotgate, the Black Lake Inn, where I had a nice meal on Sunday, the White Hart, the Swynnerton Arms, the Roebuck Inn and the Princess Royal. I have heard directly from them about the real impact that EPR fees are having on their businesses. I know that there is a plan to adjust EPR fees in two years’ time, based on the environmental impact of packaging materials. However, under the current fee structure, which involves charging per tonne of packaging material, different packaging materials are charged at different prices. Often, packaging materials with the best recycling record pay the most, which is particularly damaging for businesses such as pubs, which rely on glass packaging.
As a Stoke-on-Trent MP, it would be remiss of me not to mention the ongoing impact on the ceramics companies in my constituency. Heavy-duty packaging materials, such as glass and steel, which are commonly used by ceramics manufacturers, attract higher EPR costs due to their weight. The health of the ceramics industry relies on the glass industry. We cannot make glass without ceramics refractories. If the glass industry is on its knees, that will have a knock-on effect on the ceramics manufacturers.
Although I appreciate that the implementation has already been delayed twice, I urge the Minister to rethink or to provide a clear and fixed date with at least one year’s notice. Businesses need that certainty to plan, invest and transition smoothly, without the disruption caused by shifting timelines.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and for her frank and wide-ranging speech. I will use my time to highlight the significant and growing concerns within the hospitality sector, particularly in our pubs.
The principle behind EPR—ensuring that producers take responsibility for the packaging waste that they create—has my full support. It is absolutely right that we strive to reduce waste, increase recycling, and shift towards a more sustainable circular economy. In delivering these changes, however, we must also ensure that we do not unfairly burden working people or the businesses that serve our communities, especially when many of them are already doing their part.
A truly circular economy means designing waste out of our systems and reusing valuable materials like glass. Glass is one of the most recyclable materials that we have, and in the hospitality sector it has been instrumental in supporting closed-loop recycling systems, not just recently but for decades.
The Government have highlighted the development of the EPR policy since 2019. I acknowledge the points raised in a written response to me from the Minister, which outlined the extensive consultations undertaken in 2019, 2021, and 2023 on the implementation of the legislation. It is clear that the Government have engaged with stakeholders, including glass manufacturers, to shape the policy and assess business impacts. Despite the consultation, concerns remain, particularly among those at the frontline of hospitality, about the unintended consequences of this otherwise positive step forward.
I echo what has been said about the specific challenges those on the frontline face, and ask whether the Minister will consider targeted adjustments that would maintain the integrity of the scheme while ensuring fairness for businesses that are already contributing to recycling efforts. Specifically, the classification of glass packaging used in pubs as household waste, as has been said, is estimated to cost pubs £2,500 a year on top of the other cost increases they face. That is despite them already managing their waste through commercial channels, at a relatively high cost that often rises above inflation.
Pubs are assets to communities in Britain. They are not just alcohol vendors, but places for people to hold what might be the only conversation they have that day. They are community centres, workplaces, incubators for the hospitality staff of tomorrow, and linchpins of many village economies. However, the British Beer and Pub Association estimates that the double charging that the EPR could inadvertently bring in could add between 5p and 7p to every bottle of beer sold in the UK. The risk is that the producers of beer will be discouraged from using glass and could gravitate towards alternatives, such as plastic, which although lighter, does not offer the same level of recyclability.
There is a level of unfairness in the proposed EPR fees for pubs, which, as other hon. Members have stated, will effectively pay twice for waste collection. The fact that the OBR has defined EPR as a tax but DEFRA deems it a levy, has left pubs uncertain as to whether costs will have to be absorbed by businesses or whether they will be passed on to their customers, something that could depress demand and make it even harder for businesses to plan for the future.
We must get the implementation of EPR right, so that we achieve environmental progress without putting an unfair burden on the very people and businesses who keep our communities going. Pubs, brewers, and hospitality businesses are already doing their bit. I hope that the Government will ensure that their policies rightly reflect and reward that effort.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate, although I fear she is not going to agree with what I am about to say.
Glass is one of the most used materials in the world—we have used it for thousands of years. In ancient times, glassmaking was viewed as mysterious and magical. It is a really special product and we use a lot of it in this country. I think that the extended producer responsibility is the right way to go. We are talking about recycling, reusing and reducing. There is a business in my constituency called ecoSIP, run by a man called Alex Taylor. He is a supporter of the EPR scheme; I suspect that the Minister will be pleased that there is a business that does support it. He wrote to me and said:
“We are supporters of the EPR scheme. We believe it forces companies to take responsibility for the emissions and waste that they create, and provides incentives to decarbonise.”
He is part of a UK-led green packaging revolution. It is happening in Leighton Buzzard, but also across the east of England—in Ipswich, for example—and right across our country. EcoSIP is on a mission to decarbonise the drinks industry with lightweight, low-carbon packaging. I have been to visit and I have seen the little packages used for its wine. Each pouch uses just 2.5 grams of material. Its packaging uses 90% less CO2 than glass, yet the wine inside tastes just as good. We need to take that on board, not least because we are in the midst of a climate emergency.
Deirdre Costigan
Is my hon. Friend aware of Frugalpac, which produces wine containers in Ipswich, and is similarly trying to wean us off our reliance on glass and other unsustainable packaging and to offer green jobs in this country?
Alex Mayer
I am absolutely aware of Frugalpac in Ipswich. The east of England, where I am from, is leading the charge.
These modern green manufacturing organisations face certain issues. I urge the Minister to talk to other Departments as well, not least about the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, which I am told makes it illegal to sell 125 ml portions, which is what an average person would normally order as a glass of wine, in this modern packaging. There is stuff to be done, but luckily that is not a DEFRA thing.
There will always be a role for glass. It looks pretty—there is a bottle of it here. I love my Bonne Maman jars. We are never going to be able to turn an ecoSIP container into a candlestick holder. But we have to crack down on waste and boost recycling. The extended producer responsibility is an important first step, not least because it will also create 21,000 jobs and put a £10 billion investment into recycling, which is really welcome. In conclusion, I urge the Minister not to bottle it and to make sure that she goes full steam ahead.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We now move on to Front-Bench spokespeople, starting with Sarah Dyke for the Lib Dems.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.
It is right that the Government are taking action to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable. Recycling is essential for protecting natural resources and reducing the environmental impact of waste, but given that only 9% of plastic ever produced has been recycled, it has never been more urgent to make packaging more sustainable. The introduction of EPR can help us to achieve that, but it is important that it does not come at the cost of business viability.
The Liberal Democrats have real concerns that the EPR scheme, as it stands, will put the financial stability of small and medium-sized businesses at risk. Further uncertainty and instability for these businesses must be avoided, especially as they navigate the aftermath of the previous Conservative Government’s economic mismanagement and try to find a way through the challenges being put on them by the current Government.
Representatives from the pub, beer and cider sectors have told me that they are really concerned about the impact that EPR will have on their businesses. The drinks sector in Glastonbury and Somerton supports 101 pubs and over 1,200 local jobs, and contributes £29 million to the local economy. Profit margins for many of these businesses are paper thin, and they will have no choice but to pass on the additional costs they incur to their customers.
That is backed up by DEFRA’s impact assessment, which confirms that 85% of the costs will be passed on to consumers. Research from the British Beer and Pub Association has found that EPR could add £154 million a year to the cost of beer bottles, negatively impacting many traditional beer and cider-producing businesses that use glass bottles. The Society of Independent Brewers and Associates has noted that the implementation of EPR in its current form will likely have a significant impact on small independent breweries, pubs and consumers.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I should declare an interest, as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group.
My hon. Friend mentions independent brewers. Independent distilleries in North East Fife and elsewhere in Scotland face a real challenge, because they often do not produce separate bottles for hospitality and for other consumers. Does she agree that the Government need to look at that in their consultation, because those businesses will end up being taken into EPR through both household waste and hospitality?
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Those are, indeed, the unintended consequences we will see if the scheme is rolled out in its current form.
I am really worried about how this will impact the independent pubs in my constituency such as the Etsome Arms in Somerton, which prides itself on celebrating brilliant local brewers. This comes at a time when the UK has lost a hundred small breweries in the past year alone, with many more facing costs that they cannot absorb by themselves.
Glastonbury and Somerton is home to breweries such as Glastonbury Ales and Fine Tuned Brewery, near Somerton, as well as distilleries such as the Spirit of Glastonbury gin company. I visited Fine Tuned Brewery earlier this year to hear about some of the challenges that small breweries face, and the people who run the brewery explained their concerns about the impact that EPR will have on their business. They feel like they have been left in the dark due to poor communication from DEFRA.
It is clear that the knock-on costs of EPR will have an impact on these businesses. In fact, many in the industry are concerned that beer and cider producers might be incentivised to switch to less costly packaging such as aluminium or plastic. Those materials are more difficult to recycle than glass, so there is a risk that the scheme will achieve the opposite of its intentions. This potential backward shift in material usage may be only two years away, when the deposit return scheme comes into force.
In addition—and this concern has been echoed by many Members today—I have spoken to people in the industry who say it is clear that producers may end up paying twice for hospitality and business waste packaging under the current guidelines: once for existing waste collection and then again through EPR. I hope the Minister will comment on this uncertainty and provide businesses with the clarity they need.
On Sunday, people across my wonderful county celebrated Somerset Day and the important traditions of the region. One such deep-seated tradition is cider making. It is an economically significant and indispensable part of Somerset’s cultural fabric. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to fantastic producers such as Dowding’s in Wincanton, King Brain in Little Weston, Burrow Hill in Kingsbury Episcopi, Tricky Cider in Low Ham, Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, Hecks Cider in Street and Bere Cider in Bere, near Aller, to name just a few.
Cider makers are fully supportive of a circular economy, but many are worried about how EPR might make their businesses unviable. Many cider producers operate on thin profit margins, as I have said, and some may struggle to remain viable if they are laden with these additional costs. The National Association of Cider Makers has expressed frustration that the introduction of EPR does not align with the introduction of the DRS in two years’ time. While the full costs of EPR will not be confirmed until June, the hammer blow is already being felt. Businesses have been experiencing disruption since its introduction last month, making it very difficult for them to plan effectively.
Combined with other costs, EPR is squeezing profitability and threatening employment. Given the economic importance of cider makers, whether through the people they employ or the cider apple-growing farms they partner with, it is a massive concern to many in Somerset that these additional costs could seriously damage the industry.
When I held a very well-attended cider blossom season tasting event in Parliament earlier this year, a cider maker told me that cider is often seen as synonymous with Britain, and that British cider’s terroir is something that no other country can replicate. Cider making is a unique industry, so the costs of EPR must be proportionate and producers must be supported as they move towards a circular economy, rather than being forced out of business.
The Liberal Democrats know how important it is that businesses are given the notice, support and time they need to plan and adjust. The lack of clear information on the final fees and the timing of the start of producer liability creates challenges for business planning. I hope the Minister can give some clarity on that matter today.
The Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial that businesses are supported in this transition, especially when they have already been hit by higher employer national insurance contributions and higher business rates, as has been outlined by my colleagues today. We have concerns not only about how EPR’s implementation might affect small businesses but about how the scheme will be regulated.
The Environment Agency is already severely underfunded and struggles to fulfil its regulatory obligations on water quality. Consequently, we are cautious about EPR and want to ensure that it comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the Environment Agency to meet this additional responsibility.
Likewise, given that EPR changes the way local authorities will be required to manage household recycling, we believe that the role of local authorities in the scheme must be properly supported—they are constantly being asked to do more and more with less and less.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of making packaging more sustainable, which is why we have long been committed to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers. It is also why we want to see the complete elimination of non-recyclable, single-use plastics within three years, and why we want to end plastic waste exports by 2030. However, we are also clear that those ambitions must be achieved by working collaboratively with industry to ensure that small drinks businesses are not left behind or struggle to remain viable. If we do not deal with this issue, then less recyclable and less circular materials, or cheaper imported glass with a larger carbon footprint, will become a more viable option for businesses in a sector in which the margins are already very tight.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate, which provides an opportunity to examine the matter further. I also congratulate colleagues from across the House, and across the country, for their powerful contributions referencing the glass manufacturers, pubs, breweries, distilleries and other affected businesses in their constituencies.
As we have heard, pubs are an important part of our local communities, and of our social and family interactions, in both happy and sad times. A number of pubs have been namechecked today, and we have had a cider tour. I believe that even Heineken was namechecked, and, from memory, it refreshes the parts that other beers cannot reach.
The hon. Member for Rotherham made a powerful speech in which she advocated very strongly for Beatson Clark, a major manufacturer in her constituency that plays an important role in producing the amber glass for medicine bottles.
We Conservatives have a proud record of environmental stewardship. Between 2010 and 2022, we successfully reduced the amount of waste going to landfill by 47% and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. We also introduced a simpler recycling collection system to make it easier to recycle, saving people time and preventing confusion to boost recycling rates. Additionally, our introduction of the single-use plastic bag charge in 2015 saw a remarkable 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets, significantly reducing plastic waste.
We also passed the landmark Environment Act 2021 and set targets to tackle some of the biggest pressures facing our environment. That includes ensuring progress on clean air, clean and plentiful water, less waste, a more sustainable use of our resources, a step change in tree planting, a better marine environment, and a more diverse, resilient and healthy natural environment. In addition, the Act includes a new, historic and legally binding target to halt decline in species by 2030.
However, we must acknowledge that challenges persist. Concerningly, household waste recycling rates have plateaued. The latest published data from December 2024 showed a small decline from 44.6% in 2021 to 44.1%. However, there were some positives: notably, a rise in packaging waste recycling from 62.4% in 2022 to 64.8% in 2023.
The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations for progress in recycling and enhancing the circular economy by embracing the “polluter pays” principle to drive up recycling and improve resource efficiency. The Labour Government have attempted to take up the Conservative baton, but as ever with their implementation, the devil is in the detail. Although further action is needed to drive up recycling rates, significant concerns have been raised about the extended producer responsibility scheme in its current form, including issues relating to fee calculations, consistency across the devolved nations, cross-border business implications and the timing of the scheme’s roll-out, given the new financial challenges that this Government have bestowed upon businesses.
Although some aspects of the EPR scheme have come into effect, including data reporting, businesses are yet to feel the fee element. For example, waste disposal fees—otherwise called waste management fees— which need to be paid for packaging that is classified as household packaging, commonly binned packaging or glass household drinks containers, will be invoiced from October 2025. That invoice will be for fees for packaging placed on the market in 2024.
Modulated fees—an extension of waste disposal fees—are scheduled to come into effect in 2026 and will add a financial incentive or penalty, taking into account the environmental impact and recyclability of specific packaging formats. Therefore, hard-to-recycle packaging may face a higher fee.
This debate is focused on glass, and Members will no doubt be aware of concerns raised by the British Glass Manufacturers Confederation about waste disposal fees. Although it is welcome that the Government have clarified that they are looking at weight-based fees, there are concerns that glass will still be significantly impacted. As has been said today, there is much uncertainty about how the fees will be calculated, thereby penalising glass.
The spirits industry is an important part of the UK economy, and there are many spirit businesses operating across the UK. The UK Spirits Alliance has also raised concerns about the potential economic impact of those fees on the industry, which supports more than 446,000 jobs and contributes £13 billion annually to the UK economy. Disproportionate treatment of glass could threaten that vital sector. I understand that DEFRA has suggested that 80% of the cost of EPR will be passed on to the consumer. Small and medium-sized producers, including independent distillers, will have to make the difficult decision either to absorb the cost or pass it on.
The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that EPR fees will add 5p to 7p per beer bottle, equating to £154 million in additional annual costs. Alarmingly, the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that EPR is unlikely to have a material impact on recycling rates, which raises questions about whether this iteration of the scheme is effective in achieving its environmental aims.
With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government believe that glass, which is 100% recyclable, should have higher or lower waste disposal fees than plastic or aluminium. Furthermore, will she confirm what assessment has been made of the potential damage to the glass industry from the waste disposal fees, taking into account both the economic cost and the impact on jobs? Is she concerned that high waste disposal fees for glass may result in a shift in packaging to plastic, which may ultimately undermine the UK’s environmental goals?
Will the Minister also outline how the UK Government are working with the devolved nations to implement the EPR? What differences will there be nation to nation? What impact will that have on businesses operating across borders? For example, how will the Scottish Government’s decision to include glass in the DRS impact the roll-out of England’s EPR? It is so important to have joined-up thinking and policy implementation across our United Kingdom in sectors that span our domestic borders. Will the Minister also clarify whether the Government have ambitions to expand the EPR scheme to any other industries? If so, will impact assessments be carried out? In the light of the OBR’s assessment of the EPR, how will the Government seek to increase recycling rates?
I mentioned the timing of the roll-out of the EPR, and it is important to highlight how significant that is. The scheme, which imposes additional costs on businesses, is being introduced at a time when the Labour Government have caused significant uncertainty and pressure for businesses. The introduction of Labour’s jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions—means that businesses face an extra £900 in national insurance costs per employee. For many businesses, that may lead to job cuts, wage freezes or investment being put on hold. Sadly, in some cases, it may lead to businesses being shut down. If a business is able to survive, it is likely that those additional costs will be passed on to consumers.
Given that context, it is only right to consider whether it is appropriate to add further costs on businesses, however commendable the aim. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will continue to scrutinise these developments closely and ensure that the concerns of businesses and consumers are not ignored, while we continue to protect our precious environment.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, will you try to leave a short time for the proposer to wind up the debate?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Stringer. I did not do that last week, so the Clerks have clearly made a mark against my name. I will do my best, and I have my team on standby to yank me down, as I am sure you will do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for asking for this debate. She has been a doughty supporter of Beatson Clark in her constituency and of the glass industry in general. I also thank hon. Members from across the parties who have made valuable points today.
The aim of the reforms is to create a more circular and resource-efficient economy. They are the biggest reforms in a generation. The three elements—simpler recycling, DRS and extended producer responsibility for packaging—will turn the dial on recycling rates, which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, have stagnated over the past 15 years and are bumping along at 42% to 44%. Assessments show that getting our household recycling rate up to 65% over the next 10 years will drive £10 billion of new investment in the British economy and create 21,000 new jobs.
Mary Creagh
I will make some progress and then give way.
UK circular industries—those that keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible—currently deliver £67 billion a year to the economy, up from £44 billion in 2008, and provide 827,000 jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the innovators in her constituency creating new packaging. I will take away the point about weights and measures and see what we can do in a cross-ministerial way.
Mary Creagh
I will give time at the end but I want to make some progress.
The annual growth rate of circular industries is 3%, more than double the UK’s overall growth rate of 1.2%. Extended producer responsibility for packaging—pEPR—moves recycling costs from taxpayers to packaging producers. Think about it: not everybody drinks and not everybody shops online, but we are all paying for the costs of collection. We have had a great tour of drinking places, hostelries and amazing producers, but at the moment everybody in the country is paying for that, through council tax and general taxation. These reforms are creating systematic change, and that is hard.
Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and consistent. People will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether they are at home, work or school, which will create a step change in the quality and quantity of recyclate streams. That is enabled by pEPR, which will pay for the new costs associated with the change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned.
We are also introducing deposit return schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland that add refundable deposits to single-use plastic, steel and aluminium containers. I discussed this with my colleague in Northern Ireland last week at the British-Irish Council environment ministerial meeting at Kew Gardens. We had a two-hour debate about how we would co-operate on the circular economy, in particular looking at the challenges of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man—island economies with no real reprocessing facilities—and what we can all learn from each other.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make some headway.
DRSs cut litter, boost recycling rates to more than 90% and create high-quality materials that industry can reuse. Since it launched in 2024, the Republic of Ireland’s DRS has seen over 1 billion containers returned and a near 50% reduction in drinks container litter. Last week, I met Timmy Dooley, the Minister of State for Environment, Climate and Communications in the Republic of Ireland, who he said he had been sceptical of the DRS but now has the zeal of a convert.
This challenge is changing the way in which retailers and producers think about eco-design. Walkers is starting to use paper-based packaging for crisp multipacks, and many supermarkets are now using paper rather than plastic trays for fresh food. Our vision is to become world leaders in circular design, technology and industry.
These reforms were started by Michael Gove, late of this parish, back in 2018—seven years ago. I remember successive Secretaries of State for DEFRA coming to the Environmental Audit Committee, when I was Chair, and promising these reforms and deposit return schemes. There has been extensive engagement and consultation with business on pEPR, including public consultations in 2019 and 2021. Businesses have had a clear indication, and the scheme has already been delayed twice.
My officials run monthly packaging engagement forums, which regularly draw more than 1,000 attendees, to provide updates and test policy development with stakeholders. I have met British Glass several times to hear its concerns. I met Heineken last September. I met British Glass in October 2024, and then in January at a glass reuse roundtable hosted by the British Beer and Pub Association at the Budweiser Brewing Group. On 11 February, the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), joined me to discuss the glass sector. We have engaged on this issue.
The glass sector lobbied extensively to be excluded from the deposit return scheme. We respected that position, and kept that approach during the final passage of the DRS and pEPR legislation. Legislation on pEPR was supported on both sides of the House, but sadly the DRS was not. My officials have talked with businesses that make and use glass packaging, and we have listened to feedback to ensure that the fees are set fairly. I am very aware of the issues that the glass sector has raised about dual-use items—items that can be disposed of in either business or household waste streams. It has been difficult to find an answer that works for everyone, and because of the issues raised in the debate, I have asked my officials to consult with industry immediately to find the fairest solution.
There has been a lot of talk about small businesses. Many international pEPR schemes offer no exemption for small business. We responded to UK small business concerns by putting in place some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme globally. The exemptions mean that businesses with a turnover of below £2 million, or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market, are not obliged to pay fees. Those exemptions apply to approximately 70% of UK businesses supplying packaging in the UK. There are quarterly payment options to help with cash flow for larger businesses, and we will watch the de minimis thresholds carefully. If we raised the thresholds, that would put costs on to the remaining businesses, because local authority collection costs would remain the same.
The pEPR fees for glass are lower than those for aluminium and plastic. Because glass packaging is heavier, it costs more to handle per unit than some other materials. We have worked closely with industry and local authorities to make sure that the costs used to set producer fees accurately reflect the on-the-ground waste management operation costs that every taxpayer currently has to pay. Weight is a driving factor in waste management and it is the most common basis used to determine costs for public and private sector collection; that is why it is central to our approach. But the scheme relies on all producers paying their fair share. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, there was a range, but there was unhappiness with that, so in December we introduced a set point of £240 per tonne. The fewer free riders there are in the system—
Mary Creagh
Let me finish my point; I have not made it yet.
The fewer that do not report and pay on their packaging, the lower the fees will be for everybody. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham in previous debates: some people do not report their packaging. I have instructed my officials to work with regulators. We have done a sprint on that and tracked down about 1,800 suspected free riders, with a little over 200 companies under review. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency officials up in Sheffield who have done that, and to agency officials and the Met police, who last week arrested two individuals in London for packaging export note fraud and suspected money laundering. We are going to keep this under review. This work is having a real impact. We will publish the year one base fees in June, and I am optimistic that the result will be an improved picture.
I am happy to give way if Members still have questions.
Helen Morgan
Businesses really need to know what that rate will be as soon as possible. The financial year has already started, they have very little headroom in their cash flows and they need to be able to plan. Will the Minister commit to give us that number as soon as possible?
Mary Creagh
That number will be published by the end of June and businesses are aware of that timescale.
Dr Gardner
There are wider issues with EPR, including for innovative companies supplying new types of packaging. Woolcool produces wool-based packaging that is compostable and biodegradable, but it is classed as worse than polystyrene because it is so innovative that it is unclassified. Will the Minister agree to look into that?
Mary Creagh
I will look into that. I know that wool is used in certain packaging situations. In a way, its usage is too small to register, but we will look at all these innovative ideas and how we keep things in circulation for as long as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) mentioned many pubs—did he mention Greene King?
Mary Creagh
He did. Greene King, of Bury St Edmunds, has already started using reusable glass bottles in 65 pubs served by its Runcorn depot. It has collected over half a million bottles since January. I reassure hon. Members that I am alive to these issues and we hope to make further progress.
Sarah Champion
I decided not to intervene on the Minister because we have had this argument a lot and she still does not seem to be hearing a whole room of MPs bringing examples to her. She talked about all producers paying their fair share. I agree, and the glass sector agrees, but that is not happening because only glass is paying. The freeloaders the Minister talks about are currently plastic and aluminium. I am really supportive of all the other examples of packaging—absolutely, let us have all of them—but at the moment the Minister has a stark choice. She mentions the jobs that will be created; she does not mention those that will be lost. It is those jobs, and the likelihood of our losing the glass industry, that I urge her to focus on. She should pause the scheme, listen to and act on the concerns, and bring the whole scheme into force in October 2027, when the other two key materials will be in place. That is the only fair, just and, dare I say it, Labour way of doing this. At the moment the good guys are being punished, and people in our constituencies are going to lose their jobs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.
Carer’s Leave
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered carer’s leave.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer. I declare my interest as both an honorary vice-president of Carers UK and a board member of the Fife Carers Centre, which celebrated its 30th anniversary last week.
It is now just shy of two years since my private Member’s Bill, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, received Royal Assent, and a little over a year since the necessary regulations were passed to enact the legislation. It came after years of work by dedicated campaigners both within and outside Parliament, and I had the pleasure of meeting some of them at an event to celebrate the law passing. I said then what I say now, which is that by passing the Act, I stood on the shoulders of many who came before.
But the job is not done just because the law is passed. Employment rights are useful only if they are known about and enforceable, and if they solve the policy issue that they intend to. I want to use this debate to look at how the law has been working for unpaid carers over the past year. The myriad problems and hurdles faced by unpaid carers, or indeed anyone, are not solved by the magic of one private Member’s Bill, as much as I wish they were—as politicians, I think we all wish they were. According to the latest census data from all four nations, there are at least 5.8 million people in the UK providing unpaid care for an ill, older or disabled family member or friend. Of those people, 2.8 million were recorded as balancing that caring responsibility with work.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The hon. Lady is making an important speech and I thank her for her work on this issue. She will know about my passion to support unpaid carers, particularly young carers. She is giving some very important and high figures. However, is it likely that those figures are actually higher, because certainly many young carers, and I suspect it is the same with adult carers, do not recognise that they are carers?
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. I occasionally use my husband as an example in this debate. He cares for his elderly mother who is in her 90s, but he would not call himself a carer; it is just part of what he does as a son.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
A constituent of mine who lives in Glastonbury told me that she cares for her 95-year-old mum who needs constant assistance. She is concerned because not only is she having to spend more time with her as time goes on, but she has lost her winter fuel allowance and respite care is out of her reach. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we introduce paid carer’s leave to ensure that carers get the relief that they need while caring for their loved ones?
Wendy Chamberlain
My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my speech. There is no doubt that many unpaid carers want to care for their loved ones, but when they need respite or when the caring responsibility becomes too much, they need a social care service to support them. That is one of the challenges that many of them face.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you for securing the debate. It is an important topic and it is a privilege to be here. I used to do a lot of work with carers and young carers in my job in the NHS, and I used to visit some of the Ayrshire carers centres. One thing that people told me was important to them was getting a break, whether it be a day out or a few days away, and another was getting peer support from other carers. Respite has already been mentioned. Do you agree that it is important for carers to get a break and opportunities for peer support?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that I am not part of the debate. Can we revert to normal parliamentary language? I do not like correcting people. We have just been through the previous debate and I did not, but I think it is necessary.
Wendy Chamberlain
Thank you, Mr Stringer.
I am grateful for the intervention and I think the hon. Lady is absolutely right. In St Andrews in my constituency I met a group called the CRAP Carers—which stood for caring, resilient and positive. There is no doubt that the network of support that unpaid carers can access is really important.
We estimate that the value of the support that unpaid carers give to our economy equates to over £160 billion per year. That is to say that our care force is massive, and it needs valuing and supporting alongside every other industry. We also know, as Members have already touched on, that statistically being an unpaid carer makes someone worse off.
Early this year I hosted a policy breakfast with the Centre for Care at Sheffield University. Although the Minister could not attend, I am grateful that the Department for Business and Trade and the Department of Health and Social Care sent civil service representatives. We heard how the Centre for Care has been doing some important research on the impact of being an unpaid carer on income, which was published last year.
Staggeringly, the research finds an average relative income gap of up to 45% for those informal carers providing the most hours of care. I recommend that the Minister read the research; it is quite heavy on statistical analysis, but I am sure that the Centre for Care would be happy to meet with him, if it has not done so already. The academic research confirms what we already know from the surveys carried out by organisations such as Carers UK: unpaid carers are more likely to live in poverty, and doing something altruistic for the people you love makes you worse off.
The state of caring survey carried out by Carers UK for 2024 found that 40% of respondents had had to give up work, finding the juggle unmanageable, and of those still in employment, 44% had reduced their working hours, while a quarter had moved to a more junior role. That leaves the vast majority of unpaid carers with less money in their pockets every month. That is at a time when they may be living with the person they care for, and we know that there is a significant disability price tag. The personal independence payment down here, and the adult disability payment in Scotland—now a devolved benefit—are vital, but they are not enough to make up that difference.
The issue is not just immediate poverty although that is a very real issue, but about tackling poverty among pensioners, especially women, who are still more likely to be unpaid carers and to subsequently reduce or stop working as a result. We have a gender pension gap because we have a gender pay gap. The latest Government data sets that gender pension gap at 35%, but other organisations put it much higher. We know that caring plays a large part in that.
Responding to Carers UK last year, over two thirds of carers who had given up work said that they were worried about managing in the future, while over half of those who had reduced their hours said that they had cut back on savings for their retirement. All of that matters, not just to the individuals and their families who are struggling or to those who have promising careers that never reach their potential, but to this Government, who need to respond to the rising rates of poverty among older people while trying to reduce the benefits bill.
The struggles that lead to people stepping back from work are entirely understandable. Caring is hard, tiring, stressful, time-consuming and does not neatly fit into our free hours of the day. Flexible working does make up some of that picture, which I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, but there will always be pinch moments when care arrangements need changing, extra hospital appointments need attending or where all the tiny acts of care and admin for a loved one cannot be fitted in and around work.
The risk is that people use up their holiday, which is something that all the evidence tells us is bad for their health—as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referred to in her intervention on respite. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 was aimed at solving that—or at the very least, helping with it. It was the first legal right for carers to take leave from work for caring. It was an acknowledgment of how hard it can be, aimed at prompting a conversation about support in employment.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Last night, an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill introducing paid carer’s leave was debated in the House of Lords, where a Plaid Cymru colleague spoke from the experience of having been a young unpaid carer herself. In that debate, the Government Whip provided an update of the review into the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must, as part of that review, recognise that in order to make a true difference, carer’s leave must be paid leave?
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful for that update on the progress of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place last night. My party’s policy is for paid carer’s leave, and I am conscious that my Act only formalised some of the less formal arrangements that many people undertake, but it hopefully prompts conversations with the employer. I hope the Government review will look at paid carer’s leave and introduce it sooner rather than later. I would be more than happy if my Act were superseded.
One year on, the question is whether the policy is working. What do we know so far? It is clearly far too early to see an impact on poverty or even net employment rates, and I do not think the legislation that was passed is significant enough for that. Even if the statistics were available, there are too many moving parts to isolate cause and effect, but by now we should have a feeling of how well the Government are communicating advice about carer’s leave to businesses. Are businesses updating their policies and systems for requesting and recording leave? Are they training their managers? Do their employees know about their rights? Would they feel comfortable using them? Has the dial been moved at all towards more carer-friendly workplaces?
My big worry in the first few months after the regulations passed was that the Government were not doing enough to tell businesses about the new rights and what was required of them. I accept that at that time we obviously had a general election and a new Government. For too long, the main advice on gov.uk was on a webpage for new businesses setting up for the first time. I am happy that that seems to have been remedied, and that using the search engine to look for carer’s leave makes the right page pop up, but I am less comforted by the lack of resources on carer’s leave, or on unpaid carers at all, on the Department for Business and Trade’s website.
Yesterday, my team searched for “carer’s leave” and found no results under “guidance and regulation”, no results under “research and statistics”, one result under “policy papers and consultations” and three under “news”, two of which were from when the law was passed two years ago. It appears that the Government’s only interest in carer’s leave is in announcing a review into how it is working. Given that I secured this debate, I am clearly happy to see how things are going and how we can improve them, but I venture to say that the Government risk abandoning their responsibilities to working carers if they do not take an interest in promoting the leave that is available right now. What are they doing to ensure businesses, big and small, know about the rights of their employees and are supported in implementing them? How is this information getting out to business owners and busy managers, who simply do not have the time to look up a right that they might not even know exists? The Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury have more power to reach companies than any other organisation. If the review finds later this year that companies did not know about the leave, and therefore that it has been ineffective, DBT will need to look at its own failings and at the fact that it did not do more.
The enforcement of legal rights is not the only way the Department can encourage carer-friendly workplaces. Businesses could be signposted to a whole range of resources, including guidance from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Employers for Carers network. Carer Positive in Scotland is done with the Scottish Government, and I am pleased to say that my office is a Carer Positive employer. There is no reason why similar initiatives could not at least be encouraged down here.
As to what is happening with businesses, we can get something of a snapshot from an employer survey report published by Carers UK in January. I say “something of a snapshot” for one big reason: the employers answering the surveys are those already tapped into the networks and already alive to the issues facing carers, so low levels of reform could indicate that less reform is needed because policies were already in place, and high improvements could be because the self-selecting group is motivated to go above and beyond. But there are some really promising findings in the responses. Almost 90% of responding organisations reported no challenges in implementing the Act. More than half have a dedicated carer’s leave policy, compared with less than a quarter before the legislation came in. Some 23% of organisations saw an increase in uptake of their internal networks or support groups for employers. Many responded in free text that the law change had prompted greater understanding about what it means to be a carer, and about how people can move in and out of that status.
But there are a number of factors that I am worried about. The Government should be worried about them too, and should be looking at fixing them immediately, as well as in the longer review. Only three quarters of organisations told their employees about the new right—remember that these are the ones more likely to take action. That tallies with other research, which found that only two thirds of working carers know about carer’s leave. Hundreds of people become carers every day, and most people do not pay attention on their intranet or in their work emails to things that are not relevant to them, so unless that information is easily accessible and reiterated regularly, the chances are that salience among working carers will continue to lessen as time passes.
Even for employees who know about the right, there is a reported reluctance to be open about caring responsibilities or to request time off: 15% of respondents to the State of Caring survey said that they were worried about a negative reaction to taking time off for caring. It is deeply worrying that some respondents said that even though their organisations had policies in place, their line managers blocked requests for support. We should never be hearing reports such as:
“I work for a large public sector organisation, how you are treated all depends on that one single manager”,
or,
“My employer offers flexible working but my line manager doesn’t and says carer’s leave is for emergencies only which it isn’t.”
Given the integral need for line managers to implement carer-friendly policies, it is vital that businesses offer internal training and guidance. It is therefore worrying that of the organisations that responded to the survey on carer’s leave, only a quarter had specifically raised awareness or provided training to managers on implementing the right to leave. If the kind of organisations that are already tapped in to Carer Positive networks are not doing that, it is not hard to imagine what is happening in areas where there is low support for carers. There is a role for the Government to make sure that rights for working carers are a reality, not just a piece of paper.
Finally, there is the elephant in the room that is paid carer’s leave, which has already been referred to, and whether people can afford to take time off. I have always said that I want to see the legislation amended and upgraded. Last year, I worked with the Minister for Employment Rights, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), on the Delegated Legislation Committee considering the then draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024. I recall that he, too, wanted it to be paid. He might reflect on his own frustrations with how long it took to see that law through, and ensure that the can is not kicked down the road.
I will leave it to colleagues to look to the future, but today, I urge the Government to take steps so that the current law—the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—can reach its potential, is known about, talked about and accepted in our workplaces, and that it sparks conversations on what it means to be a carer and how work can be made to work for the unpaid carers that we all rely on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, so hon. Members can work out the timings for themselves.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. She has been an advocate for carers throughout her parliamentary career, and I thank her for all her hard work.
Unpaid carers are the backbone of Britain’s social care system. They carry out remarkable and irreplaceable roles, often with little help and too often at great personal cost. I would like to tell the story of one of my constituents, Sarah. She spent nearly 30 years as a full-time carer for her son, who has profound and complex needs. He suffered neurological damage before and during birth, and although he is verbal, he has severe autism and behavioural challenges, which, through no fault of his own, have dominated the lives of everyone around him. Sarah’s story is one of lifelong dedication and unconditional love. For years, her son’s unpredictable behaviour dictated his family’s routine. He was excluded from multiple schools and, later, from supported living settings because his needs were too challenging to manage in shared environments. He now lives with one-to-one professional carers. The support that he receives is of a high standard, but it costs as much as all the benefits he receives.
Sarah no longer qualifies for carer’s allowance because her son no longer lives at home. However, as a mother she remains deeply involved in his care. Over the years, she has given up work. She is approaching 60 with no pension or savings and with health problems of her own. On top of that, she now supports her elderly in-laws and ageing parents. Like so many others, she is a carer several times over—unseen, unpaid and exhausted. Sarah described herself to me as simply “broken” from years of having no room to breathe or recover.
Sarah contacted me not just because of the long hours of care or the loss of income, but because of the fear caused by the Government’s proposed changes to disability benefits, especially the personal independence payment. Her son relies on PIP; the suggestion that that support could be taken away or turned into a voucher system has devastated Sarah’s mental health. She told me that she cannot sleep and feels physically unwell from anxiety.
Carer’s leave is designed to support those who give so much of themselves to care for family and friends, but we must ensure that that support is not undermined by other policies. When carers are able to share some of their responsibilities with professional services and return to work, they should encounter stability, not the prospect that they will have to return to full-time caring because of sudden changes. However, proposals such as the changes to PIP risk having exactly that effect, which causes immense anxiety among the very people who we claim to be helping, including Sarah, who worries whether her son will be affected or not.
Carer’s allowance is just £81.90 a week, which is the lowest amount for a benefit of its kind. Worse still, carers are being punished for going even slightly over their earnings threshold. Tens of thousands of carers are being asked to repay thousands of pounds each, and often through no fault of their own. Indeed, many of them did not even know that they had gone over the threshold, and in many cases it was the Department for Work and Pensions that had failed to update their records in time. That is yet another example of carers being treated as an afterthought.
I am immensely proud that the Liberal Democrats, thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife, passed the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. The Act gives 2 million employees across the UK the legal right to at least one week of unpaid carer’s leave each year, which was a crucial first step, but now we must go further and make that paid leave.
Caring is vital, emotionally draining and complex work, which deserved to be recognised as such. That is why we should introduce paid carer’s leave and consult on extending the eligibility for it. We should also give unpaid carers a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, and not just when a council can afford them. We should also increase carer’s allowance by at least £20 a week, with higher earning thresholds and a taper, so that people are not penalised for doing extra hours at work.
Sarah’s story is not unique. Her exhaustion, her fear and her resilience are echoed in stories in millions of households up and down the country. We owe it to her and to every unpaid carer to stop taking them for granted.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) not just for securing this debate but for her tireless advocacy for carers. Her landmark Carer’s Leave Act was a vital first step in recognising the contribution of unpaid carers, and showed just how committed the Liberal Democrats are to securing a fair deal for carers.
In Wales, the situation of carers is especially urgent. Over 310,000 people in Wales identify as unpaid carers—more than 10.5% of the population, which is a higher percentage than in any other UK nation. In some parts of my constituency, particularly in the Swansea valley, the figure is closer to 13%, which itself is likely to be an underestimate. Many carers do not realise that they qualify as such, so they go without vital support.
Ann Davies
The value of the 310,000 carers we have in Wales is £10 billion, so they are saving the Welsh economy—or the DWP here—£10 billion. Surely, we must have a system whereby carers, through the leave that they can receive, are empowered to apply for jobs that will give them the opportunity to work and care at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having such a system is vital for the DWP’s money to be used wisely?
David Chadwick
I absolutely agree. We have already heard in this debate some of the personal stories of people involved in caring and the challenges that they are taking on. The hon. Lady was quite right to point to the financial figures and the impact that this situation is having on our economy. For example, Powys Teaching Health Board has a deficit of just over £16 million a year, and it is paying another £16 million a year to other health boards to provide social care in our area. That highlights the contribution that unpaid carers make: if the gap were not being plugged by unpaid carers, the cost would be even higher.
Wales struggles more with the issue of unpaid carers than other UK nations because we have an ageing population, poorer health outcomes and rising levels of complex care needs. Our carers are stepping up where our social care system is stretched, but they do so at great personal cost, as has already been highlighted. They are disproportionately affected by poverty—unpaid carers in Wales are nearly twice as likely as other people to live in poverty and one in five of them are among the most deprived people in our society. For many of them, taking unpaid leave to care for a loved one simply is not an option; it is a financial risk that they simply cannot afford to take.
That is why the Carer’s Leave Act matters, because it gives carers across the UK the legal right to five days of unpaid leave. However, that right is only meaningful if people can afford to use it and know about it. Recent data from Carers Wales shows that 55% of carers have not taken unpaid leave—not because they do not need it, but because they cannot afford to lose that income. A year on from the law taking effect, a third of carers in Wales still do not know their full rights.
This is not just about fairness—it is about economic reality. Both the UK and Welsh Governments have spoken about the importance of getting more people into work and driving economic growth. The work of unpaid carers saves the Welsh Government over £10 billion a year. Paid carer’s leave is not a luxury but a necessity. It is a matter of dignity, equality and basic economic justice. I urge the Government to build on the ambition shown by the Liberal Democrats and commit to introducing paid carer’s leave by the end of this Parliament. Carers should not be punished for their compassion. They should be supported, respected and recognised as the backbone of our caring system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for leading the debate. It is a real pleasure to see her back in Westminster Hall leading a debate. Party Whips sometimes do not get an opportunity to do things, so well done to her for making time for this, even though she does not have much time. I congratulate the hon. Lady in all her endeavours in supporting this subject matter. Even among the Government, there is sympathy, compassion and understanding of why this matter is so important, because every one of us deals with these issues every day of the week.
The most recent statistics show that there are some 5.7 million unpaid carers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That represents around 9% of the population, so industrious elected representatives, which we all are, will deal with those people every day of their week and understand the circumstances. They will also understand the commitment and time that those people give voluntarily, without any idea of what it will cost them—they just do it because, as the story the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) told shows, they love the people they care for. That is surely what it is all about. Their work and determination to care for a loved one does not go unnoticed, and it is extremely important that we do all we can to support them.
The pending Employment Rights Bill sets out the case for paid carer’s leave for Northern Ireland. The stats back home are quite worrying—I think they are similar to those in Wales, although the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) said that they are probably higher. One in three people in Northern Ireland have had to give up employment because of their caring responsibilities. Shockingly, 44% of carers in Northern Ireland have lost out on as much as £1,000 a month in wages due to leaving work or reducing their hours.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) told the story of Sarah. He said that it was not unique, and it is not—it is a story that is replicated every day in my constituency and, I believe, in the constituency of every Member who is here and of every Member who is not here. Every week in my office I meet those volunteers —those family members—who give their all. Their commitment drains them emotionally and physically. Sometimes, when it comes to filling out benefit forms, I see the difficulties that they have and I sometimes wonder how on earth they are able to look after anybody with all their complex health issues.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is no longer in his place, but he mentioned young carers. I know that that has been one of his passions in this Chamber. It is also something that I deal with, although maybe not as much as I used to—I have a girl in the office now who does almost all the DWP and benefit issues. She tells me that young carers are often not acknowledged in the way that they should be. They do it because they love their mums and dads—that is what it is all about.
Carers UK has estimated that providing five days of fully paid carer’s leave for employees in Northern Ireland could cost the Northern Ireland Executive between £10.3 million and £15.2 million a year. However, that could still save the Northern Ireland Executive some £4.3 million a year in carer’s allowance payments. What carers do, and the cost factor for them, can never be overstated. In terms of that large cost to the Executive, there is a give and take. There is no doubt that that could be a beneficial step to take to support those with caring responsibilities.
The whole thrust of this debate, put forward by the hon. Member for North East Fife, is about how we can help carers the most. We all like the Minister, not just because of his role, but because he is always amenable and personable when we propose things to him, and I hope that he can give us and our constituents some encouragement.
A crucial point is that the proposed PIP changes will impact those who receive carer’s allowance. If a claimant no longer qualifies for the daily living component when the new guidelines come into force, they will also lose their direct access to carer’s allowance. That loss could be as much as £10,000, and will change the whole scenario for the carer and the family—the impact will be incredible.
I know what the Government are doing, but they have to look at things and make some changes. My fear has always been that the people they will hurt the most will be the people who can least accept it. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what benefits the proposed changes to PIP will bring about. Those who will suffer will be not only PIP claimants, but carers and, ultimately, families.
We must do better for our constituents who sacrifice to help others. As a representative for Strangford, in Northern Ireland, I know the impact on my constituency and right across the Province, where there is currently no carer’s leave legislation. I look to the Minister in a beseeching way, and because, as a Minister, he has all the answers—so no pressure at all—on the matters on which we need some succour and support. I hope he will engage with his counterparts back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly and with Government colleagues to discuss what more can be done to support our carers. That is why we are here: to support our constituents and do our best for them. If that is something that we can do better after today, this will have been a debate well worth having.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. It is also a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this debate, given that it has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I thank her not only for securing the debate, but for all the work that she has done on this issue over a number of years. We are all grateful to her.
Listening to hon. Members’ contributions, I was struck by the thought that we have represented all the countries of the United Kingdom—from Scotland to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That makes it clear that this issue is of national importance, but it is also a very personal and specific problem, which many millions of individuals are dealing with in every constituency throughout the country.
I think of my Mid Sussex constituent Fe, whom I met a few weeks ago. She is probably about my age, and has basically been a carer for the past 20 years—first for her mother, who sadly passed away, and now for her father, who has recently gone into a care home. Because of that 20 years of caring she has often been unable to work, and has at times been in employment that does not reflect her qualifications or the complexity of the work that she can do.
Effectively, Fe has been impoverished by caring for her mother, and now her father. Now that her father is in a care home, the family home—her home—has had to be put on the market. When it is sold, Fe will find herself homeless. The hope is that there might be some money left over from the care home fees, but that may not be the case. Fe is looking at a bleak future: she has not paid into a pension and has been unable to build up a nest egg to look after her future after a lifetime of caring for others.
Despite the enormous contribution that they make, unpaid carers like Fe live in financial hardship. As other hon. Members have said, the carer’s allowance, which is the main form of Government support, is just £81.90 a week—the lowest level for a benefit of its kind. That is not just unfair; it is also unsustainable. As our population ages and more people live longer with more complex needs, demand is only going to grow. How can we expect people like Fe to keep caring if they are pushed to the brink financially, emotionally and professionally? I do not see how we can. Worst of all, many carers have been punished for simply trying to make ends meet. As everyone here is probably aware, if a carer earns just £1 over the threshold of £150 a week they lose their entire carer’s allowance.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend was probably going on to say that most carers have no idea that they have accidentally been overpaid carer’s allowance. Unpaid carers are doing such a remarkable job. I have been contacted by many in Glastonbury and Somerton who deserve our support. They are facing extreme financial hardship. Does she agree that we need to stop pursuing carers for old overpayments of carer’s allowance?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I absolutely agree that there should be an amnesty on those overpayments. They were accrued through no fault on the part of the people who received carer’s allowance. It came about through a failure of the Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to communicate with each other, convey information and follow up on debts as they accrued.
This is a scandal. Many of those carers had no idea they were being overpaid. That is why I and Lib Dem colleagues are fighting for a better deal. In our manifesto, we pledged to increase the carer’s allowance by £20 a week, which would have raised it to £101.90—an extra £1,040 a year. We would also raise the earnings threshold to £183 a week, in line with 16 hours on the minimum wage. Crucially, we would taper the allowance gradually, instead of cutting it off entirely. That is fair, and means that carers will not be penalised for working a few extra hours to support themselves.
Our vision for carers goes beyond financial support. We would introduce a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, because everyone needs time to rest, including carers. Many local councils already offer a respite service, but they have been stretched and pushed to the brink. Those councils do not have the resources to meet the demand for something so vital. We would make it a legal right to support respite care by introducing free personal care and pushing for long-term sustainable funding for social care, which is something I would like to see the Government act much faster on.
We must support carers because they are frankly being let down. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would introduce paid carer’s leave, building on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. The coming into force of that landmark law means that 2 million carers have the right to take unpaid leave. Our next step is to make that paid leave, because caring for a loved one should not come at the cost of someone losing their job or income. All of that is rooted in one simple belief: no one should have to choose between caring for a loved one and having a decent life of their own.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I note that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. A lot of employers are already going further than the statutory requirement, in offering some days of paid leave. Members of Employers for Carers have found it has helped with retention of workers. Does she agree that some leading employers are already showing the benefits of providing paid carer’s leave on a voluntary basis?
Alison Bennett
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I agree there are some exemplar employers who lead the way. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the benefits to the economy of offering paid leave outweigh the potential costs.
Carers are more likely to be women, more likely to be middle-aged and more likely to be juggling children and caring responsibilities. They are that sandwich generation. One in seven people in the workplace are doing just that. They deserve real action and real support. I say to every unpaid carer listening today that, whether they realise it or not, they are pillars of our society. We, here and everywhere else, must recognise that. Carers, we see you and value you; the Liberal Democrats are on your side.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate.
On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I too want to underscore the indispensable role of unpaid carers in our society and highlight the pressing need to protect and enhance carer’s leave. Such individuals, often family members or friends, provide vital support to those with long-term care needs, enabling them to live with dignity and independence. Unpaid carers, as others have said in this debate, are the backbone of our social care system. Their contributions are not only compassionate but economically significant—estimates suggest that unpaid care in England and Wales alone is valued at approximately £162 billion annually. Without their dedication, our health and social care services would face insurmountable challenges.
Moreover, many carers balance their responsibilities with some employment. The ability to take carer’s leave is crucial to helping them maintain that balance, reducing the risk of financial hardship and social isolation. The last Conservative Government recognised the vital role of carers, but first I want to pay tribute to the private Member’s Bill—now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife. I think that all of us who have had private Members’ Bills know how difficult it is to navigate the various systems and to secure the Government of the day’s support in order to get those Bills through. I am pleased to say that, under the last Conservative Government, the hon. Lady persuaded the Government to support her Bill, and we now see it on the statute book. It was enacted in April 2024, granting employees the right to one week of unpaid leave annually to care for dependants with long-term needs. That was a landmark achievement, providing carers with much-needed flexibility and acknowledging their invaluable contributions.
Furthermore, under the last Government we increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance from £151 to £196 a week, enabling carers to earn more without losing benefits. That change enabled carers to work up to 16 hours a week at the national living wage, offering greater financial stability. Regrettably, this new Labour Government appear to be undermining those advancements. Recent welfare reforms have led to significant cuts in disability benefits, with over 150,000 carers losing access to carer’s allowance. Those cuts not only jeopardise the financial security of carers, but risk increasing pressure on our already strained health and social care system.
While the Labour Government have introduced the Employment Rights Bill—or the unemployment Bill—it notably lacks provision for paid carer’s leave. The omission is a missed opportunity to further support carers, particularly those on low incomes who may struggle to afford unpaid leave. To truly support them, the Government must take note of the foundations laid by the Carer’s Leave Act by continuing the introduction of paid carer’s leave, providing greater flexibility in how leave can be taken and ensuring that carers are not financially penalised for their invaluable contributions.
Additionally, the Government must do more to ensure that any welfare reforms do not disproportionately impact carers. Their wellbeing is intrinsically linked to the health of those they care for, and by extension, to the wellbeing of our society as a whole. Carers are the unsung heroes of our communities. They deserve our recognition, support, and commitment to policies that will empower them. It is incumbent on the Government to protect and enhance carer’s leave, ensuring that they can continue their vital work without undue hardship.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, if you can, please leave time for the proposer to wind up. I have no idea if we are going to have a Division, but it might be wise if we can finish before 5.30 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I will do my best, Mr Stringer. No doubt the tension of knowing there might be an interruption will add to the excitement of my comments. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I declare an interest as a foster carer. We are not specifically talking about foster care, but it is part of the wider ambit of care. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing today’s debate and on her very long-standing and successful advocacy for unpaid carers. We all recognise the key role she played in establishing the unpaid carer’s entitlement through her sponsorship of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.
It is right that we take time to discuss the support available to unpaid carers who provide care to a family member, partner or friend alongside paid work. I accept the hon. Member’s analysis that her Act, while an important step forward, is not a panacea for all the issues that carers face. A number of hon. Members have emphasised that point.
I start by recognising the dedication and compassion of carers across the country. It is important to recognise their contribution to society, both in their working life and as carers, but we also need to consider the support they need to navigate their dual responsibilities. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the support groups available to carers. Their role is often understated, but that wider network has a very important part to play for carers.
As we have heard, carers all too often end up stopping work altogether, or they reduce their hours to manage their caring responsibilities. Just half of adult carers are in work, and a quarter are economically inactive. The hon. Lady mentioned the Centre for Care’s research report, which I will certainly look at.
We have heard about a considerable number of challenges today, which demonstrates why it is essential that we think about how we support carers to balance those responsibilities alongside other aspects of their life, including, of course, work. The hon. Lady recognised that we are improving access to flexible working through our landmark Employment Rights Bill. We believe that will help people to balance their work and other responsibilities, including their family life, such as where an individual is working alongside delivering care to a loved one inside or outside the home.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) spoke very movingly about his constituent Sarah. I do not think her experience is unique, and we all recognise that there are people like Sarah in every constituency and every part of this country. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned carer’s allowance, and I will pull up the shadow Minister on what he said about the increase in carer’s allowance, as it actually came into effect on 7 April 2025. This Government increased the earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week, so it is equivalent to 16 hours a week at the national living wage. It is the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced back in 1976, and the highest increase in percentage terms since 2001.
That means carers can now earn up to £10,000 a year while retaining their carer’s allowance, which can be worth around an additional £2,000 a year. As a result, more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between this year and 2029-30.
Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties their constituents have had after receiving an overpayment, and it is fair to say that issue has been recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions. We understand the anxiety it causes, which is why it is important that we independently review what has happened and find out what went wrong to make sure that things are put right. We urge anyone in receipt of carer’s allowance to inform the Department of any change in their circumstances so that overpayments can be reviewed. It is certainly something that the Department will be advised of following this debate.
Employees caring for someone who is disabled, elderly or living with a long-term health condition are entitled to carer’s leave, which can be taken flexibly in half or whole days, or in one go, over the course of a year. Thanks to the hon. Member for North East Fife, the Carer’s Leave Act has now been in force for just over a year. It is still bedding in, and our plan to make work pay includes a commitment to review its implementation. To deliver that commitment, the post-implementation review of the Act is now under way.
We have also outlined our commitment to explore the potential benefits of further policy development to support unpaid carers in employment, while being mindful of the impact on business. That work will include careful consideration of paid carer’s leave, and again, work is under way. Officials in my Department have spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities such as Carers UK. There have been events in Wales, England and Scotland, and that engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for his commitment to review carer’s leave and to consider the opportunity for looking at paid carer’s leave. Does he agree that would particularly benefit low-income workers and women? They make up the bulk of unpaid carers, and they find it particularly difficult to take unpaid carer’s leave because they simply cannot afford it.
Justin Madders
That point has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, and we will certainly look at the research as it is produced.
I have noted that the shadow Minister now supports paid carer’s leave, although he could not bring himself to support it during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. I am aware that there has been some debate on the issue in the other place, and we will look very carefully at how that debate unfolds.
It is important that we take the time to carefully consider the potential impact of any further policy before taking any decisions. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, we often receive responses on the 2023 Act’s application from organisations that are engaged on this issue. I pay tribute to those organisations, and some are clearly leading the way. An important point was made that, even in organisations that are very supportive of carer’s leave and have all the policies in place, people sometimes do not get any further if they have the wrong line manager. That applies to a number of similar entitlements, so more work is needed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, we need to ensure that any decisions we make are grounded in evidence. There are several potential approaches to further support, including paid carer’s leave, and we will continue to consider those with external stakeholders. It is important to note that careful design is needed where leave entitlements have a pay entitlement attached. Thought must be given not only to the impact on carers and businesses but to how any such paid entitlement would interact with existing legislation and rights.
The hon. Member for North East Fife asked a number of important questions about the Department’s role in informing employers and carers of their new rights. Obviously, gov.uk is one source, but other organisations and charities that we work with, such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust, are also sources of information. There are also carers’ networks, employers and bodies such as ACAS and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. As part of our stakeholder engagement in business roundtables, we are considering what further work we can do to promote information on carers’ rights. I am a strong believer that rights are only as good as people’s awareness and ability to enforce them.
We are engaging with carers and businesses. We are working with advocacy groups such as Carers UK and the Centre for Care, and we are working across Government to provide a coherent approach. There is now a ministerial working group on unpaid carers, involving the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, and it is discussing a cross-governmental approach.
Turning to the broader dimensions of the debate, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) spoke with great sincerity about the issues faced by his constituents. The themes that he picked out in relation to his constituents, and to Wales more broadly, about awareness of those rights and whether people can afford to exercise them, were important and are replicated across the UK.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his customary sincerity—I do not say that just because he was pleasant about me—and conveyed the importance of carers in his constituency and across Northern Ireland. I commit to speaking to my counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive about some of the points he raised.
I am conscious that there may be Divisions shortly and that I need to give the hon. Member for North East Fife an opportunity to respond, so I conclude by saying that we have heard the case that Members have made about the importance of supporting carers and their need to balance paid work against their caring responsibilities. All the issues raised are being considered in the Department’s ongoing work.
I genuinely value the heartfelt and constructive discussion we have had this afternoon. We all agree that unpaid carers deserve our recognition and support, and I am glad to see Members coming together to express that. I once again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I am sure we will continue this discussion.
Wendy Chamberlain
I start by thanking all the Members who have taken time to participate in the debate. There are several Liberal Democrats present, which says a lot about the position my party takes on carers and the recognition it gives to unpaid carers, for which I am grateful. I also thank the Department for Business and Trade and the civil servants who supported me during the passage of my private Member’s Bill, now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, in the last Parliament—they did excellent work. The real purpose of this debate is to ensure that excellent work is not lost and is seen by the people who need the help and support.
I am encouraged by the response from His Majesty’s Opposition and their approach to paid carer’s leave, and by what the Government are saying. However, I am very conscious that if we are moving forward on paid carer’s leave, we need to make sure that the current carer’s leave legislation is available to as many people as possible. I am also encouraged to hear from the Minister that there is a ministerial working group on unpaid carers. The last time I discussed carers on the Floor of the House it was to ask for a carer’s strategy; it sounds like the working group might be the beginning of one, which I am pleased to hear. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), our carers spokesperson, will be following up on that with the Minister and the Government.
We all recognise what unpaid carers do, and we all recognise how much they do. What we are saying is that, if we really want to see growth—which is what the Government say they want, and everyone in the Chamber would agree—then we need to allow those carers who can work, to work. There will always be circumstances where unpaid carers cannot work because of the severity of the condition that their loved one is experiencing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) brought one of those cases to light. But where carers can work, they should be given the opportunity and support to do so, because economic inactivity is causing real issues in our economy. That is why carer’s leave is an issue that all MPs should care about.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered carer’s leave.
Other Correction
Carla Denyer
UK-EU Summit
The following extract is from the Opposition day debate on 13 May 2025 on the UK-EU summit.
Carla Denyer
The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being eight times higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that?
[Official Report, 13 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 237.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer):
Carla Denyer
The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being 8 percentage points higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that?
Places for Growth 2030
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Today the Government have announced further steps that they are taking to transform the civil service through:
Building on the places for growth programme by bringing more decision making out of Whitehall and closer to communities, ensuring that 50% of UK-based senior civil servants are located outside London in the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by 2030.
Strengthening the Government presence across the country, with 13 cross-Government regional hubs. These hubs will have end-to-end careers across the civil service, allowing promotion without having to relocate, and foster collaboration across organisations and all spheres of Government, with talent feeding in from regional “spokes.”
Bringing central and local government together in place to work differently, launching “test and learn” pilots to trial multidisciplinary teams across Government, strengthening local partnerships, bringing policy closer to delivery, driving public sector reform and prioritising preventive interventions.
Becoming more productive and agile by reducing the London workforce, delivering admin savings by closing 11 buildings in this SR, including two core buildings, including the specific building closures of 102 Petty France and 39 Victoria Street.
Strengthening the talent pipeline: Building a long-term pipeline of talent across the country, including by:
Launching a new apprenticeship programme—OS career launch apprenticeship, which will support entry into the civil service in Birmingham and Manchester (as well as London).
Setting an ambition to have 50% of fast stream roles based outside London by 2030. This would strengthen regional talent and support the ambition to bring the civil service closer to the communities it serves.
Committing to develop and launch a local government interchange programme, in partnership with the Local Government Association. Working with the LGA to develop secondment programmes focused on working with local government.
As part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change, it is essential that the civil service evolves to become more agile, closer to the communities it serves, and more efficient to deliver savings for our taxpayers. At the heart of this agenda is the places for growth programme, which will support the delivery of civil service transformation.
By 2030, our vision is for the UK Government to be embedded in every region, supporting local economic growth and collaborating on Government-led missions. High-quality Government roles will move from London to bolster a stronger and more senior presence, delivering for all citizens across the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Aligned with the wider reform agenda, the civil service will reshape as it resizes to be more effective and efficient, enabling diverse, cross-Government career paths across the country while being closer to the communities it serves.
Building on the success of the Darlington economic campus, the Sheffield policy campus and the Leeds health and social care hub, we want to explore opportunities for more campuses to create strategic partnerships between central and local government as well as industry partners, taking multidisciplinary approaches to complex issues and making the most of each region’s strengths across the country. Two of the new campuses will be a new Government digital and an AI innovation campus and energy campus, to be launched in Manchester and Aberdeen.
[HCW633]
Transnational Repression Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
In response to global reports of incidents of transnational repression (TNR), the defending democracy taskforce has conducted a review into the UK’s response to this phenomenon, focusing on building our understanding of the scale, nature, and impact domestically, as well as making recommendations to strengthen that response. The review—completed in partnership with lead Government Departments, the police and the intelligence services, alongside engagement with victims of TNR—represents a comprehensive deep dive into the issue. This review has recently concluded and in my capacity as taskforce chair, as well as Security Minister, I am updating the House on the UK’s approach to TNR.
The UK recognise TNR as a term to describe certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals. This activity can take place both physically or online, with examples including intimidation, surveillance, harassment, forced/coerced return, abduction and even assassination at the most serious end of the scale.
Recent instances of conduct described as TNR in the UK include: the targeting of Iran International in 2023; Hong Kong authorities targeting individuals for exercising their right to freedom of expression by issuing bounties under their National Security Law; and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in 2018.
The review has found that TNR in the UK tends to be targeted and specific, where perpetrating states particularly focus on individuals whom they perceive as threats or otherwise seek to control, such as vocal critics, dissidents, or activists opposed to their regime. While TNR does not affect large numbers of people across the UK, its impacts can be severe, not only for those directly targeted but also for wider communities, where fear and concern may spread.
The UK’s response to tackling state-directed threats is world leading and our approach has matured considerably, even since the review’s inception. The review has found that the UK has the appropriate tools and system-wide safeguards in place to robustly counter this threat. While we maintain a hard operating environment for those states wishing to conduct TNR, the review makes several recommendations to strengthen the UK’s response even further.
States conducting TNR in the UK cannot act with impunity. The National Security Act attained Royal Assent in December 2023, and this pioneering legislation introduced new and updated powers and offences to ensure that the UK has the tools necessary to disrupt and deter all forms of malign foreign interference, including transnational repression.
The review has examined the work being conducted by the police and intelligence services in relation to TNR and the support provided to those under threat. It has concluded that the continued implementation of, and enforcement in relation to, the National Security Act is of paramount importance if the UK is to remain a challenging operating environment for foreign states looking to control and influence those who oppose them. As the new legislation builds on existing laws and effective practice, police and intelligence services have mature mechanisms in place to continually assess potential threats in the UK. As a result, police and intelligence services take a proactive approach to countering the most acute forms of state-directed threats to individuals, using a wide range of tactics to protect those identified as at risk.
Alongside our comprehensive statutory list of offences, measures and powers, the review has found that the UK has a suite of further tools to hold states accountable. For example, when alerted to instances of TNR, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office deploys the most appropriate diplomatic measures, both publicly and privately, to raise the cost to foreign states of carrying out interference activity. Furthermore, we work closely with likeminded partners through both bilateral and multilateral channels, including the G7 rapid response mechanism and UN, to raise awareness and build our collective resilience to this threat. For example, in June 2024 the UK signed up to a joint statement on TNR at the UN Human Rights Council. This statement outlined our joint understanding on TNR and commitment to tackle this threat together.
In conjunction with the TNR review team, and as I set out in my statement on Iranian state threats on 4 March 2025, the College of Policing has launched training and guidance which is now available for all 45 territorial police forces in the UK. This will enhance the ability of front-line police officers and staff in the identification of state-directed crimes and the actions that can be taken to escalate and mitigate this activity. This training will assist the police as they provide support to those affected by state threats activity and keep people safe. I have recently written to chief constables to emphasise the importance of this training, as increased recognition of state-directed crimes will strengthen our ability to shape our response based on threat.
The review team has also carefully considered how best to encourage reporting and ensure that reports received are treated seriously and dealt with appropriately. In consultation with Counter Terrorism Policing, the review has found that existing mechanisms—999, 101, or at a local police station—together with the new foreign interference training package, are the most effective ways to report state directed crimes and will ensure victims receive the support and protection they need. I appreciate that this is a highly sensitive matter, and there may be some reluctance to report experiences. However, it is crucial for anyone who believes they are a victim of state-directed crimes to report their concerns to the police; reports will be handled sensitively, taken seriously and investigated swiftly in line with UK law.
The UK maintains a hard operating environment for those states wishing to conduct TNR. However, the review makes several recommendations to strengthen the UK’s response even further. Today, I am publishing a guidance page on gov.uk providing those who believe themselves to be at risk of TNR with practical advice for their safety both physically and online. This guidance will complement the work of the police and intelligence services in operationalising relevant powers, including under the National Security Act, and will enable this Government to expand our collaboration with international partners to share information and co-ordinate responses.
The full detail of the review’s recommendations will no doubt be of great interest to states known to perpetrate TNR, so neither the recommendations nor the review itself will be made publicly available. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature of this topic and to preserve the integrity of security arrangements, we will not routinely comment on specific allegations. I would, however, refer to the public statements made by Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, concerning the complex and interconnected threat environment, including the threats posed by authoritarian regimes whose repression at home increasingly extends to aggression overseas. The review recommends that the UK’s tools and approach remain agile in response to this changing threat environment.
Instances of TNR are a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and seek to undermine the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, irrespective of the perpetrating country.
Let me reiterate that acts of TNR tend to be targeted and specific; I encourage people to exercise alertness, but crucially they should not live in fear. It is this Government’s priority to ensure the safety and security of those who live here. I am pleased that this comprehensive review has found that the UK has a robust system in place to ensure the protection of the public and has made proportionate recommendations to strengthen our approach further. I would stress again that anyone who believes that they are a victim of a crime directed by a foreign state should contact the police to report their concerns.
The UK will continue to ensure the systems in place to detect, deter and counter transnational repression are robust in keeping people safe.
[HCWS632]
Prison Capacity
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a prison system at the point of crisis. We took swift and decisive action to stabilise it, but we knew that was a first step. This is why, in October, I appointed the right hon. David Gauke to lead an independent review of sentencing. I expect the sentencing review to provide recommendations to place the system on a sustainable footing and ensure there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders.
Last December we published a long-term prison capacity strategy, setting out plans to build 14,000 prison places by 2031. This is the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorians. We have already committed £2.3 billion to prison expansion. Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 new prison places. While the spending review is ongoing, I can announce today that the Treasury will fund our prison expansion plans, in full, across the spending review period.
I have been clear that it was likely that further measures would be required before the sentencing review’s long-term recommendations could be implemented. Under central demand projections, the adult male estate will have capacity of just 200 prison places remaining by the end of September 2025 and will hit zero capacity—entirely run out of prison places—by November 2025.
It is therefore essential that we act now to avert a further crisis in prison capacity and manage the system over the shorter term while long-term reforms are delivered. The alternative would be the total breakdown of law and order, and the end to our ambitions of meeting our safer streets mission.
The recall population has more than doubled since 2018 from 6,000 to 13,600 prisoners in March this year. Last year I was clear that sustained action on recall was needed. The Government will bring forward legislation in the coming weeks to make more use of fixed-term recall, mandating it for sentences of less than four years. We will exclude offenders recalled for committing a serious further offence and offenders who are subject to higher levels of risk management by multi-agency public protection arrangements. This measure builds on previous legislation that mandated 14-day recalls for those serving sentences of less than a year. The proposals will ensure we do not run out of prison places before we introduce the sentencing reforms that—alongside our record prison building plans—will end the crisis in our prisons for good.
[HCWS634]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I would like to notify the House that the Department for Work and Pensions has obtained approval for an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £4,500,000. This will enable the Department to start building an IT solution, for the delivery of the eligibility verification measure, from May 2025 onwards, before the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which includes this measure, receives Royal Assent.
Funding for this measure was included in the 2024 spending review. It is expected to generate £940 million in savings over five years to 2029-30. Expenditure before Royal Assent will help to ensure the timely delivery of these savings.
Parliamentary approval for capital of £4,500,000 for this new service will be sought in a main estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £ 4,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid at the earliest opportunity following Royal Assent of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
[HCWS631]
Telecommunications Fraud: Reimbursement of Victims
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that technology and telecommunication firms contribute to the cost of fraud prevention and the reimbursement of victims of fraud that arises on their platforms.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Through regulation, including the Online Safety Act, companies are now required to stop fraudsters abusing their business models. All parties with a role to play should prioritise tackling fraud, including the tech and telco sectors, which are key partners in the prevention of fraud. However, more can be done, and further action will be set out in the Government’s forthcoming fraud strategy.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. As noble Lords will be aware, banks now have to reimburse fraud victims. However, according to the PSR, over 70% of scams by volume originate online, 54% from Meta alone, and 31% of scams by value originate from telecoms companies. Yet, despite facilitating most of the scams, technology and telecoms companies have no liability for the losses and are subject only to voluntary charters. Indeed, one large telecoms company—let us name it: BT/EE—has started to charge extra to warn people that calls or texts might be a scam. The voluntary charters are clearly not working, so does the Minister agree that tech and telecom companies will take serious action only if they have a real financial liability for the losses, just like the banks do? Does he also agree that it is a disgrace that a company such as BT/EE is profiteering from scams, and will he take action to stop that before the others follow?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look separately into the noble Lord’s question in regard to BT and so on. He will be aware that since March 2025, Ofcom’s illegal content code of practice has come into effect. That means that platforms such as Meta and the others he has mentioned, which contribute through hosting illegal activity and significant levels of fraud, now have a mandate to proactively stop and remove fraudulent content, or else they will face fines and other potential measures. The noble Lord mentioned the disparity between the banks and the platforms. We have the Online Safety Act, which has only just come into effect, and we have potential areas to look at in the fraud strategy. I am aiming to publish the fraud strategy at the end of this year and early next year at the latest. We are working through that currently, and I keep all options open.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is the Minister aware that there are still too many rural areas in the United Kingdom where the reception, both telephonic and in respect of all other modern machinery, is not viable? Will he therefore call in the senior directors of those companies to make sure that the push that is supposed to be happening is actually happening on the ground?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at that point. It is not within my direct responsibility, because this Question is about fraud. I live in a semi-rural area in north Wales myself and those issues are important, but they are not directly Home Office responsibilities. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will refer that matter to the appropriate Minister for somebody else to call in—I have enough people to call in on my own.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is about time that we treated social media as publishers and held them to the same account as we would do newspapers, et cetera? We have 14 years of lack of action on this. Should not the Government look at this again and try to deal with the problems that have just been raised?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend can rest assured that under the Online Safety Act, which passed with an element of cross-party support but which has now been implemented by this Government, we have put in place stringent standards whereby, if illegal, harmful and fraudulent content is hosted by companies and they do not remove it when requested to do so, they will face fines and penalties which are severe. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, we intend to keep that under review. We intend to look at how it is working, and if it is not working to a satisfactory level, we will take further action in the forthcoming fraud strategy paper that will be produced towards the end of this year.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Facebook’s removal of fact-checkers from its platforms leaves people even more exposed, with a new person scammed every seven minutes. To make matters worse, Ofcom decided to delay implementing its codes of practice for paid-for fraudulent advertising. Does the Minister share my concern that this decision by Ofcom means that key parts of the Online Safety Act will not be fully enforced until at least 2027?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has mentioned the fraudulent advertising duty, which, again, is a key part of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom assures me that it will consult very shortly, towards the summer, on codes of practice that will look at the very issue that she has mentioned—the advertising duty—with an aim to publish the final advertising codes around this time next year.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, fraud of this kind targets some of the most vulnerable people in our society and causes considerable emotional as well as material harm. Given that 70% of fraud in the UK either originates overseas or has an international link, can the Minister update the House on how the Government are working with other countries to make sure that those abroad who are targeting people in this country are stopped?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely; that is an extremely valuable point. Again in the upcoming fraud strategy, we will look at a number of countries from which fraud emanates. We have put just under £1 million into supporting the United Nations conference on this very issue, which will be held next year; the UK is leading the charge on that. For those noble Lords who may have missed me, a couple of weeks ago I spent four days in Nigeria dealing with the Nigerian Government and, with them, signing a charter to look at joint co-operation on fraud that emanates from both our country and theirs collectively; that is the first of a number of charters and codes of practice that we will look at with other countries. This is an extremely important point: there are certain areas from which fraud emanates very strongly. We need an international response to what is an international criminal gang operation.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I recollect that, when I was a member of the special Select Committee on fraud, we had the privilege of hearing evidence from a representative of the company that was providing me with mobile telephony. Of course, the first sentence of the evidence that they gave was, “We take this issue very seriously”. I had in fact spent five hours, on a train from Scotland, reading the terms and conditions of my contract with the company; I suspect that no other Member of your Lordships’ House has done that. The word “fraud” appeared nowhere in the contract that I had with it. It would be simple for providers to make it clear to those to whom they give the privilege of using their system that, if they use it for fraud, not only will the contract be terminated but all other mobile providers will be told that they have that background. When we revise the fraud strategy, can we insist that that simple requirement is made of mobile providers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One key area that we are focusing on in the revised fraud strategy is data sharing. I want to ensure that telecoms companies, telecommunications providers, platforms, the police and others share data where there is fraudulent activity. I hope that Members will bear with me but, when the fraud strategy comes out in due course, data sharing and how we can improve it will be one of our key aims as a Government.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned data sharing because, obviously, a lot of scams and fraud come through nuisance calls and texts. There is a no man’s land, as it were, between Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, so it vital that those two regulators work closely together. I hope that, as part of the fraud strategy, the Minister will illuminate how closely those two regulators are working together and perhaps commit to regular reports on how they are cracking down on nuisance calls and texts, which companies they are closing, whom they are fining and what impact they are having.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. I am keen on having not just data sharing but data metrics and performance in the fraud strategy. The noble Lord’s point is extremely valid. There is a lot of good talk, but we need to measure action.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we had ID security on a cyber basis, much of this fraud would be diminished and would disappear?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point; if he will let me, I will take it as a representation for consideration in the fraud strategy. The Government are keen to look at any measure that will reduce the level of fraud, which currently accounts for 41% of all crime; that impacts on businesses, on consumers, on government and, ultimately, on confidence and growth in our economy. Fraud is extremely important; I will examine the noble Lord’s suggestion.
E-scooters: Insurance
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the insurance sector about the cost of illegally operated e-scooters.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to the Private Member’s Bill that I have before the House on road accident offences caused by bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Government regularly speak to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and insurers as we develop our policy on e-scooters. This includes discussions about personal injury and property damage costs being covered by motorists, through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau’s uninsured drivers agreement, where an illegal e-scooter is at fault in a collision, ensuring that victims are fairly compensated. The e-scooters in the department’s rental trials, managed by the relevant local transport authorities, are covered by insurance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that the cost that all motorists pay for the losses of all victims of uninsured vehicles, including illegal scooters, is £530 million. How do the Government intend to close this gap, where there is no insurance offered by the market for illegally operated e-scooters and other such vehicles?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is rightly persistent on this subject and, as she knows, I have offered to meet her on it. The previous Government commenced trials but did not develop or introduce legislation. We recognise the depth of public concern and are actively considering next steps. In the meantime, the vast majority of MIB claims related to e-scooters are of less than £50,000, so are likely to be a small proportion of the £530 million that she mentioned.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, e-scooters are incredibly quiet and therefore dangerous on pavements. What action are the Government taking to prevent e-scooters being used on pavements?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The use of e-scooters needs legislation to regulate it. This is a question which I have answered in the House before and which no doubt will continue to come up until we produce draft legislation. The issues are complex. Noble Lords will know that I have replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, putting in the Library a résumé of the legislation applying in all European countries, where there are vast differences in where you can use them, whether you should have a helmet, whether there is an age limit, whether they should be registered and whether they should be insured. We are working hard through those issues. They are not easy to solve, but the noble Baroness is right that determining what can be used on pavements and what is safe in a world where people with disabilities are, rightly, very worried about this, is very important.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, even when things are made legal, they can be abused. There must be enforcement. E-bikes are supposed to travel at a maximum of 15.5 miles per hour and not be throttled up to that speed. Yet around us all the time we see employees, in effect, of multinational companies delivering our groceries and our takeaways being exploited on illegal and uninsured vehicles. Will the Government take that into account when considering any regime for e-scooters?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The speed limit of 15.5 miles per hour determines the point at which an electric bicycle, capable of more speed than that, is a vehicle that needs to be licensed. The enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers, but we are considering what we can do in this area. I recognise as much as everybody else in this House that these alleged bicycles travelling at 25 or 30 miles per hour silently, and with the logos of quite major companies on the back of their riders’ rucksacks, represent a significant challenge to the legal use of the roads system.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct to ask the Question about illegal e-scooters, but, likewise, cyclists, who seem to have an ever-expanding space on our roads, do not pay road tax or insurance. Do the Government have any plans to look at that issue?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not recall whether the noble Baroness was one of the speakers in the debate that we had before Christmas on this subject. There are significant challenges with putting forward legislation about the licensing and insurance of bicycles. We want to encourage the safe and sensible use of bicycles, because active travel is good for the health of the nation. We will consider that further in the road safety strategy, but not to the extent that it deters people from cycling.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Government came to power promising to do better than their predecessor. There is a perfectly respectable libertarian argument, I suppose, that you should not have any regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes, and that, irrespective of product safety, they should be allowed to go where they want at whatever speed they want. People might want to make that argument. It seems to me that that is, in practice, now the Government’s position. There is no regulation, there has been no regulation for a long time, there is no regulation coming and there is very little enforcement. I pay credit to the police forces that do occasionally take enforcement. Will the Government just be honest and say that they are happy with that position and intend to let it run?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, I refer the noble Lord to my answer to a very similar question he asked me on 1 April. I said to him then that I did not much care to be lectured about drift by somebody who represents a party that did an experiment in 2021, published some results in 2022 and then did nothing, and that remains the case today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, we currently have a perfect storm with e-scooters. There has already been reference to the fact that there is no need to register them, it is illegal to use them on public roads and pavements, and there is no registration when you buy the e-scooter either. Would the first step for this not be to ensure that, when somebody buys an e-scooter —because you are supposed to have a driver’s licence, provisional or full—they have to give their driving licence details, which would then be logged with that particular e-scooter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I very much respect the noble Baroness’s view about the safety of these things, particularly from the point of view of anybody with a mobility difficulty or disability. But this is only one of the things that needs to be contemplated carefully in introducing legislation, simply because the legislation has to work in practice. We are learning some things from the controlled trials that the department has sponsored—the noble Baroness will know that the e-scooters concerned are identifiable in a way that those purchased from retailers are not. We also have to be realistic about what we can expect retailers to do in these circumstances. We are, as I said, deeply considering this. I know it is an issue of great concern to this House; it is the subject on which I have answered questions most frequently since I came here. We are working hard at it, but it is a difficult area and the rules we put in place have to have some chance of being enforced in a way that controls behaviour.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I fear that the Minister will have even more questions. I have just managed to secure an Oral Question on 10 June about exactly this issue. I wonder whether, in between, he would be interested in visiting the City of London cycle enforcement group, which has come up with some quite creative ways of getting people points on their driving licences. They are able to spot, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned, where vehicles have been adapted to exceed 15 miles per hour either by pressing a button that maintains the power consistently or merely by the size of the motor on these vehicles. It begs the question of why other forces are not able to have the same enforcement rigour that the City of London has managed. He might want to visit and see how the group is doing it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am pleased to know that I shall have to answer further questions on this in June. In the meantime, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised this issue. It is very important to publicise the good work of the City of London Police, and he is absolutely right that it is very encouraging to discover that, as a result of people riding what are in fact illegal motor vehicles, they can have their licence endorsed or, if they do not have one, the points will be put on it whenever they get one.
I will try to go to see them, but I know exactly what he is talking about. It is a great model and I would encourage other chief police officers—I hope that he, with his previous connections, will too—to go and witness it, and then do the same. We also know that these things are being used for crime of various sorts. In fact, the reason why the City of London Police is cracking down on it is mobile phone theft, in particular. It is a very effective enforcement methodology.
BBC Sounds: Access from Abroad
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the BBC about its decision to deny access to BBC Sounds for people travelling or living abroad; and what the outcome of any such discussions was.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
As my noble friend is aware, the BBC is operationally independent of the Government. Decisions of this nature are rightly for the BBC. However, I welcome the BBC’s commitment to keep BBC Sounds available internationally until access arrangements to other BBC stations for international listeners are confirmed. The Government are continuing conversations with the BBC to understand the timing and potential impact of changes.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Since laying this Question, and as a supporter of the BBC, I have been pleased to have a dialogue, but I am sure my noble friend would agree that if it is to be “our BBC” then there must be communications with listeners and timescales for implementation, linking in with genuine accessibility for every user. Developing this with the World Service and investing in our soft power will be really important—perhaps this is tongue-in-cheek—to ensure that when we are abroad all of us can tune in and listen, because it helps us feel that we are not strangers in someone else’s land.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I made clear to my noble friend, DCMS is having ongoing conversations with the BBC to better understand the timing and implications of the proposed changes. Accessibility is clearly important. As somebody who, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, listens using BBC Sounds when abroad, I am very grateful that the BBC is going to consider this further. However, under the current proposals, the international audience will still be able to access Radio 4, the World Service and the BBC’s journalism for free through bbc.com. Ultimately, whatever comes out of the delay to the changes and the refinement of the plans, this is a matter of operational independence for the BBC.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in having been a BBC producer for 25 years. Today, the BBC director-general called for the “supercharging” of the BBC World Service so that it can double its audience and reach 1 billion people weekly. Can the Minister respond to his call for the Government to be ambitious for the BBC World Service and invest in its significant growth, rather than make the cuts which are being suggested at the moment?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I read the director-general’s speech with interest but, as noble Lords can imagine, since it came into my inbox five minutes before I came into the Chamber I have not had a chance to reflect on it at length. I thought, however, that the way he invoked Reithian values, and his commitment to the BBC being part of the rebuilding of trust, was really important. We recognise how vital the BBC is as a key British asset that makes a significant contribution to national life, as well as overseas through the World Service.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the concern that has been expressed about these proposals, which are partly driven by financial considerations, illustrates just how popular BBC content is right around the world, providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, real soft power. This means, for example, that BBC listeners are more likely to invest in the UK than non-BBC listeners. However, providing that content is getting ever more expensive and more difficult to fund. Notwithstanding the Minister saying how proud she is and how keen she is for the BBC to continue to do well, what assurances can she give us that the BBC will be given secure finances?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, for the BBC to deliver on its obligations, it needs continued sustainable funding. We are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will consider the best funding model during the charter review. Our priority is that there will be sustainable funding for the BBC.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, many of us in this House may just about be old enough to remember the shortwave broadcasts coming from Hungary in 1956 when it was invaded by the Russians. One of the few ways in which countries around the world can communicate or obtain information through radio is by using frequencies that have now gone in this country. Can the Minister confirm that, whatever the BBC does in order to have a long reach around the world, it is taking into account the fact that the way in which people receive radio is not always as sophisticated as the way that we are able to benefit from it here?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point. The way that this whole agenda gets taken forward is clearly key. I recommend that noble Lords read the speech by the director-general, which I thought was very thoughtful about where he sees the BBC going. I hope noble Lords will take some reassurance that he sees the responsibility of the BBC in both a national and a world context. The Government also see the significance of issues such as that. I am afraid I was not old enough to remember the 1956 conflict that the noble Lord mentions—in fact, I was not born—but I will feed his points back to both DCMS and FCDO colleagues.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that we have so many youngsters in your Lordships’ House. I echo the fact that the BBC is an important source of soft power. Like many Members of the House, I worked abroad, and I ended up with an addiction to the BBC World Service. When I confessed that addiction, I discovered that people from all countries shared my addiction to the World Service. If we squander that, we squander a big part of our influence abroad. I hope the Government will recognise that. I am encouraged by what the Minister has said, but we really need to keep the pressure on regarding this issue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is only in your Lordships’ House that I am referred to as a youngster, and long may that continue. Reflecting on my noble friend’s comments, I will say that under the original proposals the international audience will still be able to use and access radio for the World Service and the BBC’s journalism for free through bbc.com. Clearly, the BBC is reviewing and refining the plans, but I think we can all agree that we should be proud of how the BBC is such a significant part of our soft power globally.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the journalist and former “World News Today” presenter Kirsty Lang described this decision as
“devastating for all our overseas listeners … I have no idea why they’re cutting it or why they can’t introduce a subscription for people living outside the UK”.
The principal of the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire suggested that BBC Sounds could be made available for a monthly fee, and that
“Millions of others outside UK would pay for the great content”.
I appreciate that the BBC is operationally independent of the Government, but surely the Minister can constructively challenge the BBC as to why a monthly subscription fee would not be a viable option, particularly in view of its current £500 million deficit. Will she please commit to doing so?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I mentioned, the BBC is operationally independent. It is important for the BBC and our journalism that it is operationally independent of the Government. However, as I previously mentioned, I welcome the BBC’s commitment to keep BBC Sounds available internationally until access arrangements to other BBC stations for international listeners are confirmed. As I mentioned in a previous response, Radio 4, the World Service and the BBC’s journalism will still be free throughout the world at bbc.com.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I indeed remember 1956, which I am sure is a surprise to most Members looking at me at this moment. For the benefit of all of us, I ask the Minister what discussions, if any, have taken place with the Israeli Government that might allow correspondents to operate from within Gaza.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will discuss that issue with FCDO colleagues and write to my noble friend.
Water: Supply and Infrastructure
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure sufficient supply of water, and what assessment they have made of the adequacy of water infrastructure in this regard.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, statutory water resource management plans set out how water companies intend to deliver a secure supply of water. Water companies are required to publish new plans every five years. The 2024 plans have been scrutinised by the Environment Agency and Ofwat to ensure that companies can meet future challenges. The UK and Welsh Governments’ Independent Water Commission will recommend reforms to reset the water sector. It will report by summer 2025.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer—his first Oral Answer from the Dispatch Box—and I hope all the others are as good as that. Is it correct that, at the current rates of consumption, by 2050 this country will be 5 billion litres of water a day short—that is one-third of our supply—and that the rumoured answer to this, which I approve of, is that we need nine new reservoirs? Is this is confirmed? Given our pathetic infrastructure work in this country, should we not get started quickly?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. He is correct that we are predicted to get to a 5 billion litre a day water supply demand gap by 2050. However, I am pleased to tell him that he is also correct to mention that we are developing nine new reservoirs, in addition to the Havant Thicket reservoir, which is already under way and will be online by 2032. The Government secured a record level of investment in water infrastructure, with £104 billion of investment to be delivered between April 2025 and the end of March 2030. Reservoirs are just part of the story: they sit alongside other water schemes, such as transfer pipelines, nine new desalination projects and seven new recycling schemes. In fact, while they are important, the real prize in terms of closing that huge supply and demand gap is 65% more effective demand management, including tackling leakage.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister just mentioned 2050. It is a fact, unfortunately, that the government target for reducing leakage by 2050 is only 50% from the current level of leakage, which is, of course, far greater than it should be. Does the Minister agree that we ought to have a more ambitious target than simply reducing by 50% the current very high level of leakage by 2050?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Duke for his question. Leakage is at its lowest level in two decades and in December last year Ofwat allocated £720 million as part of its 2024 price review investment package to continue work to reduce leakage, focusing on things such as smart technologies and better data. The important thing to bear in mind is that the package supports continuing progress now on reducing leakage, with a requirement for companies to cut leakage by 17% between 2025 and 2030. It is important that we take action on this important issue now as well as trying to meet those long-term targets.
Lord Deben (Con)
Essex & Suffolk Water has announced that it cannot provide any extra water to any new business or extension of any business until 2036 and that the offices that are on site for Sizewell C are provided water by tankers. How on earth can we build this ridiculous Sizewell C when we do not have enough water to provide the office with drink?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to say—as my noble friend Lord Rooker also suggested—that we desperately need new infrastructure now and as soon as possible. I would like to be able to stand here and say that a number of new reservoirs are currently under way because of decisions that had been taken perhaps by previous Governments. I cannot do that, but I can point to the £104 billion investment in water infrastructure. That will do things such as help us build the 1.5 million homes. It will help us build the new nuclear infrastructure that he is referring to and generate the regional economic growth this country needs. We are working with colleagues in the MHCLG to explore how building regulations—and I think this is across the piece, not just domestic housebuilding—can tighten water-efficiency standards so that we are better able to rely on natural supplies rather than tankers.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are on course for possibly the driest spring on record, having received only 35% of the expected rainfall. Our farmers are at the forefront of this fight against climate change. The harvest in 2024 was the worst on record. The next 10 days are critical for our arable farmers. Can the Minister commit that, if rainfall does not come, this Government will support our farmers?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his question. He brings our attention to a really important aspect of the water supply. He is absolutely right that we have had dry weather; I believe it has been the driest start to the year in the north of the country since 1929. Drought plans must be produced by water companies every five years. In fact, water companies are now planning to improve drought resilience to mitigate droughts that are so severe you see them only once every 500 years. We are very serious about tackling this.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Water Minister, Emma Hardy, met the National Drought Group, which is convened by the Environment Agency, earlier this month to ensure that action is taken to safeguard water supply in all areas, including farming. The farming road map, which we are due to publish later this year, will help spell out how farmers can take more control of this. We have heard today from the NFU about how it is working with Defra to pilot initiatives such as on-farm private reservoirs, which would allow farmers to use their own water rather than rely on the public supply. This would be of benefit to both farmers and the wider population.
Lord Roborough (Con)
It was depressing to read that water companies are already asking consumers to ration water in mid-May, with our temperate maritime climate providing ample rainfall over the winter and with water bills at all-time highs. Do the Government believe that the Cunliffe review’s terms of reference sufficiently emphasise guaranteeing supplies to avoid this situation in future?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Sir Jon Cunliffe is leading the Independent Water Commission in a once-in-a-generation review of the whole water supply system, including regulation. On its terms of reference, it can go wherever it wants in its inquiries. I am sure the noble Lord, given his interest in this area, will have made his own representations in response to the call for evidence. Again, all I can say is that we have secured over £100 billion of investment to spend on improving the water supply. I wish I could stand here and say there are many more reservoirs in train instead of just one, but there are not, and we are where we are. This Government will pick up and clean up the mess the last Government left.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that several conurbations in England, including Liverpool, Birmingham and London, get their water supplies from reservoirs in Wales. In these circumstances, should permission not be given to obtain increased levels of water capacity from reservoirs in Wales only with the agreement of the Welsh Government?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I did not expect to get on to the balkanisation of water supply, but I will say that the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe is undertaken on behalf of the UK Government and the Welsh Government. If the noble Lord has concerns about water supply from Wales into England, I am sure that he will be making representations to the Cunliffe review. This is a national water system; it must serve all companies, all businesses and all households in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the water resource management plans. Will he consider requiring water companies, when they publish these plans, to set out the implications for the workforce? What are the apprenticeship opportunities? What are the job and training opportunities? We could then see what it means in terms of regional growth, reducing regional inequalities and stimulating regional economies. Could he talk to Ministers in other departments about making this happen and perhaps start with Yorkshire Water, for example?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is an interesting idea, and I would be very happy to take it up with government colleagues. To be absolutely clear, the investment that we have secured is not good simply for the water supply, it is good for our economy. The £104 billion will create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. It will improve regional economic performance in places such as Yorkshire and further afield, and it will allow us to stimulate economic growth across the regions as well as improving the water supply.
Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (Version 2)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Code of Practice and Regulations laid before the House on 20 and 31 March be approved.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 and 24 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.
Mansion House Accord
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is disappointing that UK pension funds now invest only around 4.4% in British assets, in contrast to between 12% and 18% in Canada. That is no longer good value, given the scale of tax reliefs in the UK. Equally, a mandatory backstop, as apparently favoured by the Chancellor, is hard to reconcile with pension trustees’ fiduciary duties to put our millions of savers first. Does the Minister agree that experience in Australia and Canada should encourage us to move forward sensibly? Does he also acknowledge that the task of balancing important domestic investment with the need to invest in the best interests of our savers is actually best left to the providers themselves, and not directed by the Government?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions. I am sorry that she started her remarks with the word “disappointing”, because this is a really important initiative by the industry and one that the Government very much welcome. Of course, it builds on the work that the previous Conservative Government did, which the previous Conservative Chancellor began, so I hope that there is cross-party support for these steps. This is very important to our growth mission, by increasing investment in infrastructure, and it supports better outcomes for savers. As the noble Baroness will know, this is an industry-led, voluntary accord. Pension funds are choosing to do this, because evidence shows that high-growth assets can boost returns over time. We are confident that schemes are moving in the right direction, and this accord shows what government and business can achieve together, when working in partnership. The pension schemes Bill will contain more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that change is delivered.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we all want to see more investment in the UK’s productive economy, but what protection is to be provided for people with small DC pension pots who cannot risk losses and see their pensions as a savings product, not as an investment, especially if that investment is high-risk and illiquid, as envisaged in the original Mansion House accords?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. This commitment is voluntary and led by the industry, because the industry knows and is choosing to do this—because the evidence shows that higher-growth assets can boost returns to savers over time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, in line with international counterparts, such as in Canada and Australia. Their pension funds and the levels of private asset allocation in those schemes is far higher. Pension savers will benefit from this accord through diversified savings, with potentially higher returns.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his replies and for the Statement in the Commons. I understand why my noble friend and the Minister in the Commons avoided tackling the issue of mandation, even though there was clearly a Treasury-inspired leak about the issue on Monday. Does my noble friend understand that with mandation of investment policies, should the Government consider it, comes responsibilities, with effectively the Government having to guarantee the returns or benefits on members’ benefits.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am shocked that my noble friend uses the word “leak”—I have no idea what he is talking about. As I have said, it is important that this is a voluntary commitment and that it delivers the investment promised for the UK economy. As I say, funds are voluntarily—it is industry led—choosing to do this because evidence shows that high-growth assets can boost returns over time, and we are confident that the schemes are now moving in the right direction. But equally, as I say, the pension schemes Bill will have more details in it about how these developments will be monitored over time to make sure that that change is delivered, because in the end what we all want to see is higher levels of investment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is right that this is an entirely voluntary scheme, why is it necessary for the Government behind the scenes to threaten to make it mandatory?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Because it is very important that this voluntary commitment delivers the investment that is promised for the UK economy.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative. Indeed, I would be pleased to see the Government go even further in ensuring that our long-term pension funds have faith in Britain, invest in Britain and use the £70 billion of taxpayer money that goes into pensions every year to add to contributions made by individuals and employers to benefit Britain, rather than being free to put 100% into overseas markets. But of course we need to make it more attractive to invest in the UK, and I urge the Minister to look into the possibility of using closed-ended investment companies that do exactly that kind of investment, are selling at discounts and have been hit by unfair regulation, which has stopped them being able to raise new capital and provide long-term returns of this nature for pension funds.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I know that she has a great deal of expertise in this matter, and I enjoyed the meeting that she and I had with my honourable friend the Pensions Minister on this exact topic—he mentioned her in his remarks in answer to this UQ yesterday in the other place, so she has clearly had a big impact on his thinking. I am pleased, and I welcome the fact, that she welcomes these reforms. She has often called for greater investment by pension funds in productive assets, which I think is exactly what is being delivered. She has called for greater investment by pension funds in UK assets, which is again what is being delivered. Of course, there is always more that can be done; I hear what she says about the campaign that she has led for many months now, and I am sure that my honourable friend will look further at that issue.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, a number of pension providers have warned that progress will be dependent on
“a steady supply of high-quality UK investment opportunities”.
That is a big pipeline challenge, because our record of financial returns on infrastructure projects is, as we know, suboptimal. Investing in fast-growing start-ups and scale-ups, whether here in the UK or overseas, carries far greater risk. In many sectors such as tech, the failure rate of such start-ups is over 90%. Can the Minister therefore explain how these sorts of investment opportunities sit with the pension funds’ fiduciary and consumer duties to act in their clients’ interests in terms of maximising returns for pensioners without taking excessive risk?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the importance of the pipeline that he speaks about. The Government are playing our part in that, with £100 billion of additional public investment over the course of this Parliament. Our job as the Government is also to support the pipeline of investable projects, which is why we are getting the country building through our planning reforms; why we have ended the ban on the development of onshore wind; why we have set up the National Wealth Fund; and crucially, why we will be publishing, at the time of the spending review, the 10-year infrastructure strategy and modern industrial strategy.
The noble Lord is also right when he talks about the long-standing problem in the UK economy of the ability for growing firms to get hold of scale-up finance, which this accord will help to address. The accord will provide investment for infrastructure but also provide growth capital to a much wider range of firms. These are often smaller-ticket items, and pension funds will need them to be aggregated to a higher level, which is exactly the work of the British Business Bank.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are keen, quite rightly, to encourage more investment into the United Kingdom, why do they still give tax relief to those with ISAs who invest in overseas equities?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government of course want to see more consumers participate in capital markets and benefit from the long-term financial security that investing can provide. We are committed to incentivising greater saving and investment, and we recognise that ISAs play a very important role in helping households to build a financial buffer for a rainy day.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, having spent much of my life as a pension fund trustee, I am aware that this is not a new proposal. Can the Minister give us an undertaking that voluntary will not precede compulsory? What pension fund trustees are concerned about is being ordered what to do with their members’ money, which they are trustees of, not for.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think I may have covered that several times already. I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that this is not new. For the first time, we have 17 providers signing an accord, giving a commitment from industry to bring more assets into scope, doubling the target from 5% to 10% and including a specific commitment to investing half of that in the UK. That commitment has not been given before. As I have said, the pension schemes Bill will include more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that that change is delivered.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, it may not surprise your Lordships that before we start the debate on the first group, I remind the Committee again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I have mentioned, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord has already declared an interest in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared.
Amendment 206A
Lord Cashman
“Residential boat fees to be classified as rentThe rights set out in Part 1 of this Act extend to any individual—(a) for whom a boat is their only home, and(b) who is liable to pay a boat licence fee, boat registration fee, boat rental fee or mooring charges.”
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for racing here like a 15 year-old. I was under the impression that there was another Urgent Question, but there is no excuse.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that this is my first contribution in Committee, although I raised this issue at Second Reading. In moving Amendment 206A, I shall also speak to Amendments 262 and 271. While this is my first intervention, I am all too aware of the complexity of the Bill, so it is right that I give my gratitude to the clerks of your Lordships’ House who have advised me on how to proceed from the very beginning. Initially, it was my intention to bring forward one amendment to address the absence of rights and protections for permanent houseboat residents, those people who live permanently on houseboats along the rivers and inland waterways of the United Kingdom. After further advice, we have three amendments.
I am also grateful for the help I have received from Abbie North and Caroline Hunter from the University of York, Pamela Smith of the National Bargee Travellers Association and houseboat residents around the country. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their support and for adding their names to my amendments.
I believe that the amendments are straightforward in what they request, but I recognise that they could be complicated in their implementation. Amendment 262, calling for a review from the Secretary of State, I consider to be entirely reasonable, and I will consider returning to it at a later stage if there is no movement from the Government or commitment to it or its principles. I thank the Minister and her team and officials for requesting to meet me when I had, interestingly, just one amendment tabled. It was a frank, good-humoured discussion, and I am aware of the good faith concern that exists, but I was deeply disappointed to learn that such a reasonable amendment calling for a review could not be accepted and would, it was said, drain resources cross-departmentally. Amendment 262 is a perfectly reasonable ask, specifically since this issue has been shunted into the sidings by successive Governments since 2005, despite frequently being raised in another place and in your Lordships’ House.
These amendments address a series of wrongs that need to be righted. Relying solely on the Financial Conduct Authority and the tenuous protections of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is an insult to houseboat residents and just does not work. They need security of tenure and basic rights, hence the amendments.
The need for legislative action is becoming urgent. The rights and protections afforded by this Bill and other Acts of Parliament should apply to residential houseboat residents because they have tenancies and agreements for their moorings, a mooring fixed to a pier or the riverbank. They have to abide by all the obligations of residents within their local environment; additionally, they pay council tax, energy bills, water bills and insurance, but they are missing statutory rights and protections. They have even fewer protections when the owners of moorings propose increases to mooring fees, develop the site or, in some cases, refuse to renew licences.
The problem is growing. It is happening across the country, from Vauxhall to Chelsea to the Isle of Wight, in Manchester and Brentford and along the rivers and canals of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is happening in Southwark. One solicitor specialising in this area said the calls are increasing monthly. We need these amendments. The calls are from people now facing not only eviction from their moorings but having to physically move their homes. They must take their homes with them or abandon them. She told me that these calls are often coming from vulnerable people, including disabled people who pay council tax and have leased residential moorings.
I am grateful of the South Dock Marina Berth Holders’ Association in Southwark for bringing its plight to my attention. Currently, plans are before the council that could force out residents, businesses and community hubs and demolish the entire site, a site providing marine facilities to more than 200 boats and more than 300 marina residents, which is further proof of the need for government action. I quote SDMBHA:
“Boaters have no legislative protection from exorbitant rises in mooring fees. Boaters have no security of tenure and are increasingly facing existential threats to their way of life which means that these communities and increasingly Boat communities across the entire country are experiencing huge existential threats”.
Southwark Council, which owns the site, has decided to look again, but the development threat hangs over yet another community of boat dwellers.
Time and again, I believe that Governments have dismissed these overlooked and often forgotten people. The excuse was that more evidence was needed. Well, it is there. I have outlined some of the evidence. The problem is growing and, as I said, will not be wished away. As homes become more difficult to rent and impossible to buy, people will turn to alternative sources, as we have seen with mobile homes and boats. People need places where they can live. The right to a home, a place in which to rest one’s head is a basic human right. Perhaps those who cannot afford to buy a place in London but may have some money will be tempted by one of the adverts at Limehouse Marina and elsewhere that encourage people to buy their floating home from £250,000 upwards, with flexible moorings, without security of tenure.
I have gone on longer than I intended. I know that the Minister, is sympathetic, but now is the time for action. The time for commitment is now. Therefore, I say to the Minister, if not now, when? There must be no attempt to kick this into the long grass again. Let us not say that we cannot do it because a mixture of different departments needs to deal with it or there are not enough resources. If the resources are not there now, when will they be? Meanwhile, evictions and homelessness among these communities will continue to increase. This needs political will and intention. I urge the Government, at the very least, to commit, within the legislation, to bring forward the review that I request from the Secretary of State. We can compromise on the length of time, but let us have a commitment to get it done. Let us deal with and recognise the needs of these people before these shameful situations turn into a national scandal. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading of this very welcome Bill, which will return that most valuable public good—security in one’s home—to so many people. I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendments 206B and 275A, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, whom I thank for his support. I thank Friends Families & Travellers and Garden Court Chambers for their expect advice, and declare various positions in relevant organisations, as set out in the register. I am also most grateful to the Public Bill Office for sorting out some last-minute corrections so rapidly.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 262 and 271. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for tabling them and for his excellent introduction, which explained the lamentable situation we have arrived at whereby people living on boats continually fall through the cracks between housing and what is now known as Defra. I will go a little bit into the history, so that the Minister will perhaps appreciate the need for action now.
Those with permanent moorings have some protection, although the cost of mooring fees and licences is an issue. I am especially concerned with those who do not have a permanent mooring and are classified as continuous cruisers, which means they can stay for a maximum of only 14 days in one place. This situation dates from the British Waterways Act 1995, when Parliament removed the need for boat dwellers to have a home mooring.
The Canal & River Trust, which is now responsible for our waterways, has embarked on a review by an independent commission. It says that the review will seek to implement any reforms, including any legislative changes, as soon as possible after its conclusion. Your Lordships may feel that that is a good way forward, but the problem is that housing is not reflected anywhere in the Canal & River Trust’s main purposes: waterways management, maintenance, environmental protection, and generating income to support its work, which might include development along the riverbanks. Your Lordships can see that nowhere is it tasked with looking after the rights of boat dwellers to a safe and secure home situation. All this amendment is asking the Minister to do is to ensure that this group of boat dwellers be considered within the scope and implications of the Bill. Defra formed a working group in 2017 to try to resolve some of these issues, but that was inconclusive.
Amendment 271 concerns the definition of a dwelling house. In 2016, the Planning and Housing Act placed a duty on local authorities to assess the housing needs of boat dwellers and bargees. However, the Act did not read across to the duties of the Canal & River Trust, in whose gift lie mooring and mooring regulations. As the riverbanks are continually assessed for development or leisure potential, the supply of moorings is constantly under threat. The ability to moor somewhere is obviously essential if a boat is your home. Given the Canal & River Trust’s rule that continuous cruisers cannot stay on any one mooring for more than 14 days, for a boat to remain a home there must be a supply of available moorings.
There is a lot of history to this, but I will not go into all of it because I do not want to detain the House. I simply mention that in 2004, I took part in a debate when the late Baroness Hanham was trying to pass an amendment to address this very issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very apposite point when she said that for
“the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to refer the people involved to Defra and for Defra to tell them that it is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves us wondering what we can do to get bits of government not just to talk to one another but to find a solution to a very real problem”.—[Official Report,16/9/2004; col.1422.]
That was over 20 years ago. My right honourable friend Vince Cable raised the issue in 2006 when he was MP for Twickenham. He identified one reason why the navigation authorities and regulatory bodies are rather hostile to residential boat owners—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, touched on this. He said that at best they tolerate them, but they do not see them as integral to canal conservation. So there was a certain amount of prejudice against boat dwellers and Travellers, and I do not believe that has changed.
The Minister who replied to my right honourable friend Vince Cable is now the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, Leader of our House. She said that a working group had been formed and that action in this area had been sought for a number of years. Well, that was 19 years ago and the solution is no nearer, because the department responsible for waterways never considers housing matters for boat dwellers, and the housing department, which has been through many names in time, does not relate to waterways issues. This Bill must break the mould and address this matter now.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare, as my family owns land in Cookham with a quarter of a mile of river frontage along the Thames and one of its tributaries, but we have never accommodated houseboats. I have added my name to Amendment 262, so ably spoken to by Lord Cashman, and it is appropriate that houseboats are linked in this group of amendments with mobile homes, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just spoken. In both cases, the home is owned or rented by the owner, but the land or water on which it rests is owned by somebody else. This leads to issues of security mentioned by the three previous speakers, as the home—which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, may cost a quarter of a million pounds—has really no value unless it is on land or secured to land. To that extent, there is some comparison with leaseholders, because the flat owner owns the flat, but he does not own the land on which it is based. That is the point that I want to make.
All three tenures—leaseholders, mobile home owners and boat owners—have varying degrees of security. Right at the top of the scale are leaseholders, whose rights have been progressively improved over the last 50 years, and more rights are promised in forthcoming legislation. Lower down the scale are mobile home owners. They have rights; as a Minister, I put on the statute book the Mobile Homes Act 1983. That legislation was then succeeded by other legislation, further improving the rights of mobile home owners. By contrast, houseboat owners are right at the bottom of the list and have very little security. So far, all Governments have refused to make any progress.
I will not repeat the problems facing boat owners that have been so ably mentioned, but I just make this point. In answer to a Question on 17 January, the Minister in the other place said:
“The government recognises that while the occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and wider consumer … legislation, they do not enjoy the same level of … security as those in the private rented sector. We will consider what action might be necessary to provide houseboat residents … with greater security in their homes”.
That is exactly what Amendment 262 does. It asks the Government to review the security of houseboat residents, which the Answer said they are going to do anyway. So, I honestly do not see why the Minister has any reason not to accept this amendment, as it simply is in line with an Answer given by her parliamentary colleague only three months ago.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my name is down in support of Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, which, as he so eloquently explained, calls for a review of the position of river houseboat residents. I also support his Amendment 206A, which would give houseboat residents similar protections to those afforded to renters in the Bill before us. Protections are needed for those on houseboats against evictions and massive increases in mooring fees and licences, which are simply not affordable to many who have made their homes on our rivers and canals.
I couple these houseboat amendments with Amendment 206B, so convincingly covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, which would enhance the rights of those living in so-called mobile homes, often known as “park homes”. There are obvious parallels between those living in mobile homes where the site is owned by someone else and those living in houseboats, where, again, the resident does not own the place where their home is situated, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, explained. In both cases, there is a need for protection just as much for the rights of those occupiers as for those living in permanent bricks and mortar homes that cannot be moved.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her fearless campaigning for Gypsy and Traveller rights, and I will not attempt to speak on her expert amendments in respect of those communities.
My interest in respect of mobile homes stems from the Mobile Homes Act, which the former MP, Peter Aldous, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill and I piloted through your Lordships’ House in 2013. Today, some 200,000 people—many of them elderly—occupy such mobile homes, on about 2,000 sites. Although some are living in happy communities, there have been too many cases of unfair practices by site owners taking advantage of those residents.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present during Second Reading or the preceding Committee sittings due to a health issue. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
I fully support this group of amendments and wish to speak in particular to Amendment 275A, to which I would have added my name if I had been more alert to the changes at the time. I am delighted to see Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, which cover the conditions of those living in boats. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has laid out the arguments for these amendments extremely eloquently.
Over the years, I have had several meetings with the National Bargee Travellers Association. These are a group of people within our community who have had a difficult time, as they have no permanent moorings. Some find they are constantly moving in order to comply with mooring conditions. This can be extremely disruptive, especially for those who have school-aged children or health appointments to keep. As my noble friend Lady Miller has said, this issue has been running for a very long time. It really is time that equality was brought to the issue for all those living on a boat as their home. There should be no difference between the way different houseboat dwellers are treated. Boat dwellers should have the same protection as those living on dry land: a safe and secure home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has set out the case for Amendments 206B and 275A extremely well. It is essential that all the facilities on site, including amenity blocks, are in a good state of repair and fit for use. Residents living on Gypsy and Traveller sites often experience poor living conditions, with inadequate mechanisms in place to hold landlords to account, especially on the maintenance of essential living facilities. The Renters’ Rights Bill presents a vital opportunity to address this, and we should grasp it.
Most significantly, the RRB abolishes assured shorthold tenancies and fixed-term tenancies. It also introduces an extensive range of further measures designed to enhance the rights of tenants, including applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector and extending Awaab’s law to private rented sector tenancies. The Office for National Statistics conducted research in 2022 with residents living on private and local authority sites, who reported issues such as fly-tipping, vermin infestation, proximity to environmental hazards, dampness and leaks, and the general need for repair. This could be the environment which some children would consider their playground.
The current changes will not apply to buildings comprising essential living facilities, nor the caravans and mobile homes situated on a pitch on a Gypsy or Traveller caravan site. Together with the housing health and safety rating system contained in Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, these measures are important means of policing housing standards. There is no justification for not applying these regimes to the buildings that Gypsy and Traveller households use as part of their home or mobile home when it is rented from a landlord.
The previous speakers have supported this group of amendments and I agree wholeheartedly with their comments. The protections afforded to tenants in bricks- and-mortar buildings must be extended to those whose homes are in caravans and mobile homes, as well as to the amenity buildings on the sites of these homes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments as a point of discussion and commend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on his introduction of it. As somebody who has spent 50 years in the property business, I am absolutely unsurprised that the noble Lord may have received a less than enthusiastic welcome from members of the Bill team, because his amendment raises a fundamental principle around what we are actually looking at: that is, whether we are looking at the use of land or the use of a water body, which we used to refer to as “land covered by water”.
It seems to me that the principles relating to those two are rather different. A fixed pitch for a caravan is fundamentally different in qualitative and quantitative terms from a mooring, which is, in essence, a connection to the shore but with the vessel fundamentally sitting over water. It is not just houseboats that are involved here. This is also about moorings in marinas, where the water body may be a tidal area, which one would assume might be in the possession of the Crown.
A fundamental difference here is that, where you have a house as a piece of real estate—in other words, land with bricks and mortar—it is fundamentally fixed and has a degree of permanence in law, unlike something that can be sailed away. To take another analogy, if somebody wishes to have a motor home and park it permanently at one location, does the same apply? Because that could be driven away; it is not in the nature of a permanent feature.
I do not have any particular problems with the provisions of this Bill applying more widely, if that policy decision is made here, but I do see a problem in terms of its application. This gets a little more complicated when you consider that the item occupied for this particular purpose may be something that somebody rents as an entirety—in other words, a boat and a piece of mooring and the water in which it floats—or may be something quite different, in terms of its nature, because the person who occupies the thing may actually own the boat and bring it there.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, Awaab’s law might apply to the former instance, where the boat and the pitch are a complete package, rented as one element. However, it would not apply to an occupier of their own houseboat. However leaky the bucket may be, it is their responsibility and not the responsibility of the person from whom they are renting the mooring.
So I can see that there are a number of different ways in which this rather difficult cake gets cut, and I rise to clarify some of the points as a matter of land law rather than to pass judgment on whether, as a matter of policy, there should be the protections afforded under this Bill in whole or in part.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Earl’s expertise in this area. However, I suggest that the key aspect which the Renters’ Rights Bill deals with is not essentially the physical structure of the home but the fact that it is somebody’s permanent home and they are the residents and rent it. Even if it were a balloon in the sky, if it were a permanent rented home, that is the criterion that should apply equal rights to the residential person. I will probably defer to the noble Earl’s expertise, but it does seem to me that renting your home is what matters, not what the home consists of.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I am grateful to noble Baroness, who has great wisdom in this area. I am a humble technician on these matters.
There is an issue of permanence: whether the item is in some way permanently fixed or adhering to the surface—or, if it was a house on stilts, glued to the bottom of whatever water body there is—or whether it is actually capable of being removed. Permanence is a bit of a problem, I agree. I dare say that the average static caravan might have a life expectancy of perhaps 20 years before it is effectively scrap. I do not know how long a houseboat lasts, because I have never asked anybody. I do know that, every now and again, they have to be hauled out of the water and taken away to some yard to have plates welded on the bottom, anti-fouling paint added and all sorts of other things done to make them fit for purpose. Therefore, they do not have that permanence of being permanently affixed to a site from which they cannot be removed without total demolition.
I see that as rather different from something that can be sailed away, driven away or lifted out of the water. It is a different nature of animal from what we understand as real estate. The real estate here would be the land covered by water or, in the case of a mooring in a marina, that bit of tidal water. For something that might be on wheels, the permanent bit is the pitch and not the device or box in which the living takes place. That is the break point that we are dealing with here. As I say, I make no policy judgment on this. I just say that there is a technical difficulty in real estate terms in trying to pin it down, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, got the reception that he described earlier.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Whitaker. I want to emphasise the shortage of appropriate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, particularly when the size of this community is growing. There are multiple disadvantages linked to insufficient quality accommodation on sites—not only poor education and physical and mental health outcomes but a sense of social exclusion from the wider community.
The dearth of GRT sites and accommodation can cause conflict and tension. Local councillors are beset with complaints if an unauthorised encampment appears in their area. Unauthorised encampments often result from a lack of suitable authorised places. The Government already know these issues, but they need the partnership of the housing sector to drive change and speed up delivery of sites. I know that the social housing sector would like to help the Government in breaking this cycle by providing sufficient and appropriate sites and accommodation. There are a number of measures that can be taken in partnership to deliver more homes, and reduce conflict and costs to the taxpayer.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today.
These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector.
The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.
At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first.
As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.
I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.
However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with.
Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be.
The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand.
The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.
I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes.
Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners.
The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.
Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed.
In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this has been a very worthwhile and effective debate. Not for the first time in my short 30 years in politics, I think we have won the arguments but have lost the vote—should it ever be called.
I thank all noble Lords for their interventions. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I pick out three of those who I call my friends—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best—for their very early guidance and support to me on this issue. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right about the problems with what I am proposing. Indeed, the courts have exercised themselves greatly over the issue of land and chattels in relation to boats and fixings to piers. Arguably, that is why we need a clear definition and clear protections in law.
I associate myself with the other amendments in this group because I want to see more protections afforded to people, not fewer. Of course, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I expected more; I always expect more. I come from a profession—I have almost forgotten as it was many, many years ago—in which, if there was a problem, we went into a room and used our imagination to solve that problem, or at least to come up with suggestions for how to solve it. If, as politicians, in government and in opposition, we adopted the same process, people might forgive us more when we fail because our intention is to succeed for all the best reasons.
Of course, there are unintended consequences. I am told it fills lawyers’ pockets when such laws are passed and that happens. There are unintended consequences—the consequences of doing nothing. When I withdraw this amendment, those consequences will be the continuation of people being evicted from their homes, caravans and boats. The evictions and homelessness will be accompanied by families in despair. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why definitions which determine who is subject to housing laws, rights, and responsibilities can be amended by regulations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets.
The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation.
I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation.
The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott on the Front Bench and reiterate her very strong arguments and those from my noble friend Lord Marlesford just now.
We have seen a quite significant trend since the general election of the Government seeking to award themselves very wide-ranging, permissive powers in primary legislation with very little detail. That is a significant concern. Certainly, if the boot was on the other foot and a Conservative Government had brought forward a clause such as Clause 64, where we are being invited to take on trust the expeditious post-dated production of a statutory instrument and regulations, the party now in government would, quite rightly, have complained about that.
If we look at the detail, this is an extremely wide-ranging amendment. Clause 64(4)(b) talks about “relevant tenancy” and the adding or removal of any particular kind of relevant tenancy. On “dwelling”, paragraph (c) states,
“in addition to a building or part of a building, it includes any other structure, vehicle or vessel”,
and
“includes a building or part of a building, and anything for the time being included in the meaning of ‘dwelling’”.
That is a very wide definition to be in a Bill when we have an open-ended commitment to produce regulations without any date.
I think, and have said before, that the idea of retrospective legislation is poor. In a different context at the beginning of Committee in your Lordships’ House I mentioned this issue. It is very worrying that there is no opportunity for a period of amelioration and getting used to the regulations.
Finally, given all that, the chance of significant instances of litigation arising from this clause are pretty high, I would think. For those reasons, is the Minister able to write to noble Lords before Report at least to give an indication of when those regulations are likely to be published to reassure your Lordships’ House that this a one-off in terms of how wide and permissive these powers are? Frankly, it is not good enough. It does not allow us to analyse properly the efficacy of the policy and the likely impact it will have on any litigation for both landlords and tenants. I hope the Minister is able to take those issues on board.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the definition of a landlord and thank the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Jackson, for participating. Amendment 206C seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 64. This would mean that amendments to the definitions of “relevant tenancy”, “residential landlord” and “dwelling” set out in the Bill could not be made by regulations. This would affect Part 2, which includes the redress and database provisions.
I fully agree that any changes to the definition of those who bear responsibilities and benefit from rights under this legislation should be made with proper consideration. The definition of “residential landlord” under Clause 64 of this Bill has been drafted with care to capture the majority of typical private tenancies in England. However, the private rented sector has proven itself to be dynamic. I am sorry to say that the unscrupulous use of complicated arrangements, such as certain types of rent-to-rent schemes, has demonstrated the need for flexibility in how we define who is, or is not, in scope of private landlord redress or the database. We are also aware that other forms of occupation, such as occupation under licence, may benefit from the Part 2 protections in the future. A strong case may be made for expanding who is protected if certain arrangements proliferate following the implementation of the Bill.
Our focus at this time, however, must be on getting our reforms right for the millions living in typical private tenancies, rather than extending the redress and database provisions to other kinds of residential occupier whose needs and circumstances may be quite different from the majority. We have included a power to change the scope of Part 2 by regulations in the future if it is considered appropriate. The reason is that the introduction of mandatory landlord redress for the first time is a significant undertaking. The definition of “residential landlord” has been drafted, as I said, to capture the majority of tenancies. We have retained the flexibility to change the scope of rental agreements covered by the database and ombudsman in the future, should that be deemed necessary.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known.
On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here.
I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hacking
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the Bill so that the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme, rather than leaving it to the Secretary of State’s discretion to make regulations.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, we now move on to Clause 65. I have tabled a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 207, 210, 214, 215 and 216. All of them are directed at tidying up the terms of the Bill, but they are also rather complicated, so I must ask for the patience of the Committee as I go through them one by one, so that I get the argument right relating to each of them.
Amendment 207 takes us straight to Chapter 2 on page 99 of the Bill and landlord redress schemes. Clause 65(1) says that the Secretary of State
“may make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme”.
The difference of opinion that I have in moving this amendment is that that should not be in terms of “may” but “must”, because it is an essential feature of landlord redress schemes that all residential landlords join in.
Amendment 210 goes further into this section of the Bill. The requirement that I seek here is that there should be only one landlord redress scheme. I think that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to that. I would like it to be rather stronger and make it an obligation to have only one redress scheme.
We then move to Amendments 214, 215 and 216. Amendment 214 gives sympathy to those who are digitally inept, which certainly includes me. In that amendment, I seek a requirement to enable those who are unfamiliar with computers and other electronic devices to be able to enter the redress scheme and not be digitally excluded.
Amendment 215 is the most complicated of all my amendments. It would make it a condition of approval of a designated redress scheme that the Secretary of State should apply the test of what is considered appropriate and proportionate in support of tenants experiencing house-related problems. It is a matter of drafting, perhaps, but a matter of some importance.
Amendment 216 is very sensible and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help me here. I suggest that we should be quite sure that the duty of the Secretary of State is to designate one landlord redress scheme in the private sector, and no more than one.
I hope that I have covered all the amendments sufficiently and accurately. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel.
It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few.
This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence.
There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot.
In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach.
We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it.
Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement.
Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately.
Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Before I turn to the amendments, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, advised of her opposition to having Clause 65 stand part of the Bill. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State power by regulations to require residential landlords to be members of a private landlord redress scheme. I note her concern over placing a legal requirement on landlords to join a redress scheme. However, having no legal obligation on landlords to do so means retaining the status quo, in which a very small minority of private landlords choose voluntarily to sign up to a redress scheme. I believe only around 100 landlords out of the 2.3 million in the country joined a previous voluntary scheme.
This lottery for private tenants is wholly unfair, particularly as those renting in the social sector have enjoyed universal access to landlord redress through the Housing Ombudsman service for decades. This Bill makes it clear that being a residential landlord is a serious commitment, which most landlords understand, and that it carries responsibilities and obligations towards a tenant. For those who do not understand this, we need to make it clear through the Bill.
Placing a legal requirement on landlords to be part of a redress scheme is necessary and key to delivering a long-promised government commitment. Access to justice for tenants should be not at the discretion of landlords but built into the new tenancy system, promoting high-quality, safe and secure privately rented homes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I start with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking— I hope he is going to carry on saying “Hear, hear!” as I go through his amendments.
Amendment 207 would place a duty on the Government to lay regulations requiring residential landlords to be members of a landlord redress scheme, rather than giving them discretion to do so. I understand why my noble friend has put in this amendment and I reassure him that the Government are committed to requiring private landlords to become members of an ombudsman as soon as it is practicable to do so. However, it would not be beneficial to the sector for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require landlords to join an ombudsman scheme before being assured that it is ready to join. We have taken powers in the Bill to allow the Government to make sure that the ombudsman is introduced in the most effective way, with the appropriate sequencing. This will make sure the ombudsman scheme is ready to deliver a high- quality service at the point that landlords are required to join it.
Amendment 210 seeks to set out in legislation that only one redress scheme can operate in the private rented sector at any time. Amendment 216 similarly seeks to remove the ability to set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that can operate in the private rented sector at any one time. It is indeed our intention to approve a single redress scheme, as my noble friend outlined, which all private landlords will be required to join. However, as my noble friend has noted, the legislation allows at the moment for more than one scheme. There are an estimated 2.3 million landlords operating in England, letting their properties to 11 million tenants. Allowing for multiple schemes in legislation offers the Government the flexibility and assurance that, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively, additional schemes could be brought into this space to take over some of the load.
This approach to allowing for the possibility of multiple schemes has precedent: for instance, in the Housing Act 1996, which makes provision for social housing redress as delivered by the Housing Ombudsman. It is therefore vital that the Government can set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that they will approve or designate for the private rented sector. This will allow the Government to set a limit at first of one scheme, with the assurance that this is not set in stone, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively.
Amendment 214 would make it a statutory requirement for the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme to enable access to the service through offline routes. I fully agree with my noble friend on the importance of ensuring that those who cannot or do not wish to use a computer are still able to engage with the service and access redress. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that the Government intend to ensure that the scheme is accessible, including to those who require offline access. We will expect the new ombudsman service, regardless of whether administered by a public or private body, to meet the same set of high standards for accessibility as outlined in the government service standard and accessibility requirements for public sector bodies. There will be further opportunities for the Government to ensure that this is the case without amending the Bill.
Amendment 215 would expand the role of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman to provide support for tenants with housing-related problems that are outside of their landlord’s control, such as issues with employment, welfare or debt; I found the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about piecemeal amendments to the welfare system, as I think he called them, a little ironic in view of where we find ourselves with the welfare system. This amendment would be an additional responsibility for the ombudsman not directly linked to resolving disputes. We think that it is important that we focus on the main function of the ombudsman, rather than considering other functions that may slow down implementation or direct resource away from delivering against the core purpose of the redress service.
We recognise, of course, that tenants facing housing-related employment, welfare and debt problems should have access to support. It may be appropriate for the ombudsman to signpost tenants to, for instance, their local authority, Citizens Advice or tenant advocacy charities, but we do not think that any amendment is necessary for that to take place. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Hacking to consider not moving his amendments.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 208 would exempt landlords from being required to join the private landlord ombudsman if they use a property agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme. We cannot have a situation where tenants have no route to redress for problems that are outside an agent’s control, such as where a landlord refuses to authorise large repair works or behaves badly toward the tenant. This is why we think that it is fair that landlords, including those who use a managing agent, can be held accountable if they have failed to resolve a tenant’s complaint satisfactorily.
We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision. Our primary concern is that the service works effectively for landlords and tenants so that tenants can access redress where needed and treated fairly by the system, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent.
Amendment 210A seeks to prevent regulations under Clause 65 requiring landlords to remain members of the redress scheme for a specified period after they cease to be residential landlords. Problems can occur for tenants at any point in the rental process, right up to the very end; in fact, the end of a tenancy can be an extremely stressful time for both landlord and tenant, with a lot of scope for things to go wrong as a landlord takes back possession of their property. Requiring landlords to remain members of the ombudsman for a reasonable amount of time once they have stopped being a landlord gives tenants the opportunity to seek redress for harm or inconvenience caused at the end of their tenancy.
As part of the implementation process, we will work with stakeholders to ensure that the period of time for which former landlords are required to remain members of the scheme is appropriate and proportionate. I assure the House that we are committed to ensuring that landlords who choose to leave the sector can exit the ombudsman scheme as quickly as possible; this is not a “Hotel California” ombudsman where you can check out but never leave. However, this needs to be balanced with giving tenants sufficient time for issues to come to light and for them to escalate complaints after their tenancy has ended.
Amendment 210B seeks to require a draft of the landlord redress regulations under Clause 65 to be published within six months of Royal Assent. We agree that transparency is important, and we are committed to giving the sector as much time as possible to prepare for the new redress requirements. However, it will be the published scheme, not the regulations—indeed, not regulations under Clause 65—that will set out how the private landlord redress scheme will operate.
We are committed to working with the sector to implement the PRS landlord ombudsman service smoothly. We intend for the details of the scheme to be published with significant lead-in time and to be piloted before landlords are required to be members. We do not think it would be right to place a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations within a set time from Royal Assent. This is already a complex landscape, and work on this needs to be carefully thought through. Delivering it in a rush could be counterproductive, creating more problems down the line.
Amendment 212A seeks to remove the requirement for the redress scheme to provide for the appointment of a responsible individual to oversee the investigation and determination of complaints under the scheme. This individual will likely be known as the private landlord ombudsman. We believe that clear accountability is important to promote good performance. Responsibility and authority for oversight of the complaints handling process under a scheme must lie with a single accountable person. This is common practice across other redress schemes and we believe it is right that it should be the case for the private landlord ombudsman. We will set out in the regulations the process for appointing the responsible individual for the redress scheme.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her very constructive reply. It happens many times in this House that, when we seek to change “may” to “must”, requiring more pressure to be put on the Government to commit to a certain form of action, the Government’s traditional reply is, “Leave it as ‘may’: you have our promise that we will do our best to bring this measure in and actually apply the ‘must’ test rather than the ‘may’”—so I accept all that my noble friend has said.
I was interested in her comments on the landlord redress scheme and the explanation that she gave for why it would be quite sensible as a starter to have more than one redress scheme in place, but the aim must be to have a uniform scheme in place as soon as that is possible. However, the most important thing is the obligation on every residential landlord to join the scheme. I hope the Government will concentrate on that and will not have the type of figures that my noble friend has given to the House about an earlier scheme with a tiny number of landlords joining it and with a great, great majority not. I think that is probably the most important thing.
I am very happy, therefore, in these circumstances to withdraw my amendment, based on the very helpful response that the Minister has just given to us.
“(2A) A scheme must not be approved or designated under subsection (2)(b) unless it satisfies the conditions set out in regulations made under section 66(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a landlord redress scheme must not be approved or designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose unless the scheme meets the conditions set out in regulations made under clause 66(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to make regulations under clause 65 before making regulations under clause 66.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State has a freestanding duty to make regulations under clause 66 which set out the conditions that must be met by a landlord redress scheme for the scheme to be approved or designated under clause 65(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that a person who has been expelled from a scheme may join another scheme in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Hacking
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the database to be established within one year of the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I congratulate our Chair on going through these complicated provisions. She is doing very well and should receive congratulations from all of us.
We now move on to the chapter relating to the private rented sector database, which is an essential component in the efficient bringing in of the provisions of the Bill. The database should be set up even before the Act comes into force.
Amendment 219 seeks an obligation that the database operator must establish and operate the database within one year of the Act being passed. It seeks to set down a timetable for the bringing in of the database. All these amendments, like my earlier amendments, are meant to be tidying-up amendments and helpful to all of us taking part in this debate. The other amendments in my name in this group are Amendments 231 and 232. In an earlier version of the grouping, Amendment 237 was in this group but somehow it has disappeared. Can it be brought back to this group so we can discuss it as well?
Amendment 231 would require
“the database operator to ensure that facilities are available for persons to report breaches of any requirement”
by means other than a computer. I have already spoken to the problems of the computer inept, including myself, and my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic on that issue.
Amendment 232 would require
“the database operator to ensure that facilities are available for people to access information on the database, in situations where they do not have access to a computer or electronic device”.
Again, it would help those such as me, who are digitally inept.
Amendment 237 would remove
“the exception for landlords to be registered on the private rented sector database before a court can grant possession in cases”
under ground 7A of the Housing Act 1998, as amended; for example, proceedings brought by the landlord for possession for anti-social behaviour. That seems to be a sensible amendment. There should not be restraint on a landlord bringing such proceedings, which are socially vital for the community in which those tenants are playing a part.
Those are all the amendments. I hope I have been able to describe them lucidly and correctly to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225. Amendment 220, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, is the first of several amendments to support and enhance the Bill’s proposals for a PRS database. I am grateful to my noble colleagues and also to the Lettings Industry Council, Generation Rent, and the Large Agents Representation Group for help in drafting these amendments.
The database, as proposed by Clause 76, will contain some basic information about the landlord and the property. This will assist local authorities in the carrying out of their duties in the enforcement of required standards in the PRS—private rented sector. It will save councils time and money—chasing landlords for the information the council needs and locating properties failing to meet statutory requirements.
However, the database can do much more than this, and Amendment 220 makes it clear that it can have a wider, more significant role. It would surely be a wasted opportunity if the property database was of use only to local authorities. The amendment makes it clear that information on the database should also be available for the benefit of tenants, landlords and their agents. Not least, this new resource should enable landlords and agents to identify any obligation for them to obtain a licence from the local authority where the property is subject to a licensing requirement and would assist them in making such an application.
For tenants and prospective tenants, Amendment 220 makes explicit what is surely intended; namely, that the database is being created to provide important information for those seeking a property to rent who want essential details about their future home and its landlord.
Amendment 225 seeks to assist the new database process by clarifying that its functionality should allow data to be uploaded by landlords’ agents as well as by the landlords themselves; otherwise, landlords will need to be contacted constantly by agents to obtain the information they need. With around half of rented property being supported by lettings agents, this tweak is another reason why the amendment is a necessary addition to the Bill.
This property portal amendment is supported by those representing renters and those representing landlords and property agents. With the additional features that we will discuss in the next group, these amendments seek to ensure that the database has a transformative impact in raising standards, helping enforcement and widening knowledge of all the properties in the sector.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 220 neatly ensures that the Bill is clear about who the PRS database is for. I understand the Government’s need to consider privacy, but in doing so the Government need to remember why the PRS database is needed. It is about increased transparency, empowering renters so that they can make informed decisions about where they live and properly exercise their rights. Yes, support for landlords and, yes, a tool for local authorities to raise standards—these are the intentions of the database and always have been since we started to lobby for this Bill many years ago. Amendment 220 is a simple way for this to be made clear in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept this amendment. I also ask her to confirm that the Government’s priorities for the private rented sector database remain renter empowerment, support for landlords so that they are aware of their obligations, and providing an effective toolkit for local authorities to drive up standards.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my Amendments 243 and 243A, all of which seek to strengthen and clarify the role of the new private rented sector database.
I also support Amendment 219, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. In so much of this Bill we lack a timeframe. Between us, we have tabled several amendments asking for clarification on timeframes. It is not just us seeking these timings but everyone who is impacted by the Bill.
This is an area of great potential. I confess to getting quite excited about it when I first realised that it was a real tool in the Bill. A well-designed database could be genuinely transformative, supporting better enforcement, empowering tenants and giving responsible landlords the tools that they need to navigate the system more effectively. The noble Lord and I have very similar thoughts on that. However, to achieve that, it must be more than just a repository of basic information, which is where I fear we are going. It must be useful, accessible and enforceable.
Amendment 220 seeks to make it clear that the database is a tool not just for local authorities but for public good. It should serve the interests of tenants, responsible landlords and good letting agents alike. In its current form, the Bill seems to emphasise enforcement utility but underplays the wider potential of the database as a source of transparency and information for all parties in the rental market. If we want this database to help drive up standards and support informed decision-making, we must set out that intention clearly.
Amendment 225 introduces two further practical improvements. First, it allows letting agents to upload information on behalf of landlords, a sensible provision given the role that many agents already play in managing compliance. Secondly, it proposes that the database should offer a portal to help landlords determine whether their properties require licensing under the local authority schemes and to apply for those licences where necessary. Too often, licensing rules can vary from one area to another and be hard to navigate, particularly for smaller landlords. A centralised, user-friendly tool would significantly improve compliance.
My Amendment 243 probes a critical issue: enforcement. The Bill states that landlords must be registered on the database along with each of their dwellings, but it is currently unclear what consequences there are for non-compliance. This amendment proposes that failure to register should be an offence, and we seek clarity from the Government on how these provisions will be enforced in practice. Without credible enforcement mechanisms, even the best-designed database risks being ignored by the very landlords it is intended to regulate.
Finally, Amendment 243A would give the Secretary of State the power to include links to useful resources on the database, such as the “My Housing Issue” gateway. Such signposts may seem minor, but they can make a real difference, especially for tenants who need guidance on their rights or for landlords seeking to meet their obligations. The database should not exist in a vacuum; it should connect users to help, advice and relevant legal frameworks.
These amendments may differ in focus, but they are united by a common aim: to ensure that the private rented sector database lives up to its promise and potential. It must be more than a tick-box exercise; it must be practical, enforceable and truly useful to the people it is meant to serve. I hope the Minister will give these proposals careful consideration, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I will make just a couple of comments on the two amendments tabled by my noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best. I start with Amendment 220 and the point made in support of it by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because what is proposed here is clearly, in effect, a public register. I was not absolutely sure that I understood whether that was delimited in certain ways by the reference to “other interested stakeholders”, whoever or whatever they might be in any given circumstance, but a public register is what we are dealing with.
If I may, I link this across to the next group of amendments, because it is appropriate to mention here that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has Amendment 222, which has an extensive list of requirements. I simply say that some of what she sets out there might need a rethink as to whether it is appropriate for that degree of detailed information to be on a public register, bearing in mind who else may have access to it and for what purposes.
I have a question on Amendment 225. I absolutely agree with the functionality point, and I add to that by saying that there must absolutely be an email communications option in any database of this sort. Given the state of the normal, regular postal service, having an email option and being able to flag up an alert system of some sort would be absolutely essential for any landlord, their agent or, for that matter, any renter using the database.
My question is to do with the way the database is applicable to local authority schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, confirmed what I believed to be the case: namely, that local authority schemes might vary considerably. If we have a national database, I simply ask how that deals with strictly local things on a per local authority basis. The rules of the game must obviously apply nationally, but the property concerned, the landlord and the renter in particular may be local. I simply flag up how that will function or whether there will be a subsidiary local authority subset on a per local authority basis.
If we have approach, and given the amount of data that the noble Baroness’s later amendment suggests, then, in terms of the amendments previously spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I suggest that we are looking at quite a considerable lead-in period in practical terms to get this database in place. If it is to be of use, it needs to start off as some sort of cut-down version in order to enable the essential information to be there, even if it is then expanded. I therefore see this being achievable by some sort of rollout over time. Trying to put it in place from day one would be a recipe for something approaching chaos.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.
The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.
Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.
Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.
I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments on database operation and accessing the database, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their contributions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke to Amendment 230, which is in the next group, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to Amendment 237, which is in group 6. I will respond to them when we get to those groups, if that is okay.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I apologise. I have two lists that have different numbers in them; I think they are one before the other.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up.
I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well.
Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible.
The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to withdraw Amendment 219. The Minister has done magnificently. May I just say on behalf of all of us that she is doing magnificently? She stumbled for a moment just now, but it is amazing that she has not stumbled before. She is covering her brief with extreme detail, and I thank her on behalf of everybody in the Committee.
My noble friend replied to my amendment, which seeks a definite date for the establishment of the private rented sector database. In a sense, I think my amendment was unrealistic because the development of a database obviously takes time. The promise has already been made by my noble friend that they are working on that database and recognise its importance, and that fully satisfies me.
Now I am going to place a burden on my noble friend because I had not seen that Amendment 237 had been regrouped and put into another group. The Whip has told me that I am not allowed to speak again on that amendment, but is there any chance of my noble friend replying to it now, immediately after I have made the case for it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is more appropriate for me to respond to that amendment in order because otherwise it would make it difficult for other members of the Committee to reply to it. I shall reply to it in the sixth group, and if my noble friend cannot be in the Chamber, I shall send him a response in writing.
“(d) entries containing details of landlord gas safety records and landlord electrical installation condition reports for dwellings which are or intended to be let under residential tenancies.” Member’s explanatory statement
This would include landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks in the PRS database. Permits the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the PRS database to register landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 221, 224, 227, 229 and 230. These amendments are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. The noble Lord, Lord Young, apologises for his unavoidable absence but underlines his support for the amendments. I thank all those noble colleagues for supporting these amendments.
The amendments relate to the content of the new database, a property portal. They add key items to the information to be provided. Amendments 221, 224 and 227 would add landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks, with definitions of what these comprise. Currently, there is a national digital register of all energy performance certificates, and these EPCs will be brought together with details of the letting. However, there is no register for the critical landlord gas safety or electrical checks. These are frequently lost or neglected, and tenants may be unaware of them. The PRS database provides an opportunity to have these vital safety certifications brought into the digital age and made available widely, to ensure the safety of rented property. Building safety is now a national concern, and details of these checks represent important content for prospective tenants as well as for local authorities.
Am I right in thinking that the Government intend to consult on further items to be covered by the database and that, as part of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to add items to go into this new portal? I would include many of the extra items listed in Amendments 222 and 228, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender. For example, listing rent levels would provide invaluable data for the First-tier Tribunals, which will be taking decisions on market rent levels. A further addition it would be good to see would be a categorisation of properties suitable for people using wheelchairs or with mobility problems. To have this information readily available via the database would be helpful not just to renters seeking accessible accommodation, but to the landlord with an adapted property who is looking for tenants who can make use of the adaptations.
Finally, Amendments 229 and 230 would require the PRS database to make use of the unique property reference number, to which the Minister has already referred, as the identifier for every property on the database. This valuable and reliable tool already exists as a means of identifying any specific property. Noble Lords may not be aware that all their homes already have such a number—a UPRN, which can dramatically speed up the search for a particular house or flat. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity to put this excellent facility to good use. A pilot scheme utilising UPRNs in Nottingham has demonstrated that councils get a sixfold return from investing in this approach and streamlining the property data for collection for their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, jumped the gun in welcoming Amendment 230. I will save her having to do so again and thank her now.
In conclusion, and in relation to all the amendments in my name and those of colleagues, to whom I offer my thanks, I believe them to be acceptable and agreeable to the organisations representing renters, landlords and property agents. I hope that the Minister can support them and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 228 seeks to enhance transparency and oversight in the private rented sector by requiring the database to include information on tenancy disputes. This would cover a range of issues, including disputes about rent levels. It would also record the outcome of each case and how long it took to reach a resolution.
This is, at its heart, a proposal for greater clarity. It is not intended to be punitive, nor to cast all landlords in a negative light—quite the opposite. It is an opportunity to reward good landlords. Those who respond quickly to issues, resolve disputes fairly and demonstrate a commitment to their tenants should have that record reflected and recognised. Too often, the private sector operates in the shadows, with tenants unsure of their rights and little visibility of how disputes are handled behind closed doors. This amendment would bring to light that process by recording the nature of a dispute, the parties involved, the outcome and the time taken to resolve it. We would therefore create a more informed and accountable system.
For tenants, this information is empowering. It helps them to make better decisions about where and with whom they rent. For landlords, it provides an incentive to act responsibly and promptly, knowing that their actions contribute to a public record. For policymakers and regulators, it offers a valuable source of data to identify patterns, spot areas of concern and improve enforcement.
The inclusion of rent level disputes is especially important for improving transparency. At a time when affordability is a growing concern, making this information available would provide clear insight into how disagreements over rent are handled and resolved. It would help build a more accurate and evidence-based picture of where pressure points exist in the system. It would also help tenants and policymakers understand how rent issues are being addressed in practice.
In short, this amendment would help foster a culture of fairness, responsiveness and trust. These qualities are essential if we are to improve standards across this sector, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the amendments in this group, including Amendment 228 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a Nationwide Foundation trustee—I think I declared this last time I spoke, but I cannot remember, so better twice than never.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will set out in great detail why the list of criteria is needed in the Bill. However, put simply, more detail on what the PRS database will contain needs to be in the Bill, which needs to set out core functions and minimum standards. Leaving the detail to be filled in later by regulation at the whim of a future Secretary of State is not acceptable. It will make the Bill less stable and requirements less easily understood. Landlords need clarity about what the law requires of them and tenants need clarity on what they can expect in terms of their rights.
I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will bring back on Report an amendment that sets out minimum requirements for the PRS database that can sit in the Bill, to give clarity and direction akin to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 222, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This Bill is very big and has wide-ranging impacts. Some are certainly planned, and others are possibly unplanned. It is vital that those impacts are evaluated. It is unfortunate that, at this stage, the evaluation plan is slightly unformed, but the impact assessment makes it clear that it is going to rely on some of the data collected in this database. Given that it is going to rely on that data, I think it has to be specified in the Bill.
For example, one of the prime aims of the Bill is to increase security of tenure, thereby reducing evictions and unplanned moves. The current source of that data is from the English Housing Survey, which suffers from the vagaries of any survey at the moment and questions about its validity. More importantly, it also does not have the necessary granularity, given that the local authority level is going to be the level at which this Bill is enforced. So we need the data that is going to be collected in this database in order to be able to tell whether the Bill is at all effective, and what other effects it might have.
That is true also of things such as rental increases, which it is trying to keep a lid on. If we do not have a record of those rental increases, we will not know whether it is effective. So I am concerned to hear tonight that the database may not even be fully in action within the first year of the Act being passed. How will we know what the effects are if the Act has already been in place for over a year before we measure some of these impacts? I would love to hear more from the Minister about what is going to be in the database and when those different aspects of the database are going to be active.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have already mentioned Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, so I need say no more about it at this stage. I turn, then, to the one other amendment in this group that interests me: the one introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The information that she proposes should be disclosed in the database is quite extensive. I have three points to make.
First, is the noble Baroness satisfied—and would the Minister consider herself satisfied—that, if there were an ongoing dispute, putting that data raw, on an incomplete process, would be free from creating a prejudice around the outcome? That might be in either direction; I am thinking only that this might be a quasi- judicial process of one sort or another. I just wish to flag that up.
Secondly, in any event, obviously, the database would identify both parties: the renter and the landlord. I assume that, when the noble Baroness says that her amendment would create a greater egalitarian thing, she is also happy with renters and landlords being mentioned, because the identity of the parties will be known. However, depending on the detail that goes in, there might be the disclosure of what might be described as more sensitive information related to the nature of the dispute; I wished to flag that up in case it had been overlooked. Bear in mind that, if we are talking about an open register, this goes to everybody, anywhere, who can tap into the information.
Thirdly, there is a whole issue here around the performance characteristics that sit behind this group of amendments, in terms of what is going on around the efficiency of the process through which information might be derived from this database. There must be a difference, I think, between the metadata from the processing of things, such as the speed at which things are dealt with and so on, the data on the types of disputes that might typically arise, including their frequency and distribution, and the individual data on the register. There will certainly be derivative information that does not necessarily require the total disclosure of all sorts of intricate and possibly personal details.
I would be very happy for the database to be used for the purpose of the further processing of non-personalised data of one sort or another for statistical and performance calculating processes. I am less clear, though, that that necessarily sits as a direct part of the database; that is, as a derivative of it. One must be careful about what one is expecting the raw data on a database to consist of; and about how it is going to be used as a derivative thereafter.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister. I was remiss not to thank her before the previous group for the time she gave up to meet my noble friend Lady Grender and me to discuss the database. I know that she is always very willing to meet noble Lords and that she gives up a lot of her time. I hope she will accept my thanks now.
The amendments in this group continue to relate to strengthening the content, utility and functionality of the new private rented sector database. As has already been highlighted, the database could be a powerful driver of higher standards, tenant protection and, importantly, support for responsible landlords. But to fulfil that role, it must be built on comprehensive, reliable and adaptable foundations—something these amendments aim to deliver.
Amendment 222 is in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, whom I thank. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his positive comments. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord both made some pertinent comments that I hope will add to the debate. Yes, the amendment sets out a broader and more ambitious vision for what information could be captured in the database from the onset. If this system is to be genuinely useful, it needs to go beyond the basics and include key documentation that reflects the safety, security and condition of the property. Renters deserve to know that the home they are moving into is safe, compliant and fairly let.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that I do not intend to go into great detail on this today, because time is of the essence. To sum it up, the point is to expose infringing, dodgy landlords. A good landlord has nothing to fear, but if things such as banning orders are on the site, this might incentivise landlords to not get themselves into that position in the first place. In Watford we have had issues with a landlord who is a prolific property owner. It would be very useful, and quite powerful, if people could see the number of offences under the name of a landlord. I accept the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If there was any hope of any elements of my catch-all list being taken up, I would happily argue each one with him on a case-by-case basis.
Amendments 221 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would ensure that the database includes records of gas and electrical safety checks, and that, crucially, it can become a digital home for all these certificates. We already require these documents to be produced, so incorporating them into the national system should be a logical next step. Amendment 227 would even allow accredited safety certificate providers to upload directly, removing administrative burdens from landlords and improving data accuracy. This would modernise and streamline an essential part of the compliance process.
Amendment 228 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender focuses on tenancy disputes—specifically rent levels and resolution outcomes. In the absence of reliable rent data, we lack the evidence base needed to track affordability—something that has come up before in the Bill—or understand the impact of policy changes. Including dispute outcomes would help tenants navigate the system more confidently and enable more informed decision-making by both renters and landlords. It also provides an accountability mechanism to ensure that the system is working as it should.
Amendment 224, also from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and which I support, is linked to these proposals and would reinforce the requirement for the database to include the right types of detail to make it genuinely functional for enforcement and policy use. I am sure we would all be willing to contribute to a general discussion on what that might be.
Amendment 229 introduces a small but important clarification to ensure that the database links records not only to landlords but to specific dwellings. This might seem technical, but it speaks to a broader point. The system must allow us to track the full history of a property and not just its owner, although the owner is clearly vital, especially the owner we have mentioned many times: the invisible, absent, non-contactable landlord. This is vital in cases where properties change hands but the issues persist. With reference to the local case that I referred to earlier, often it was just a family member’s name that had changed, so I think the more we can track down these infringing and rogue landlords, the better.
This brings me to Amendment 230, which would require the use of the UPRNs: unique property reference numbers. That is a new acronym for me. These identifiers already exist and are widely used in local government and in the property sector. Using them in the database would help standardise records, reduce duplication and enable effective data sharing across agencies—something that they, and all of us, think needs to be improved. It is a ready-made tool that would help knit together fragmented information across the sector and, as we have heard, it has proved effective.
These amendments work together to build a more useful, transparent and future-proof database that supports not only enforcement but renter safety, data integrity and informed policy-making for the future. Each of these proposals is practical, proportionate and grounded in existing obligations. What they offer is not duplication but integration. I hope the Government will recognise the value of taking a more ambitious approach to what the database can deliver and I am heartened by the comments that the noble Baroness has already made today.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there.
The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark.
We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe.
That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans.
Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them.
We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time?
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database.
I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.
Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Okay, fair point. We need to make sure that we do the development and the testing of the system carefully. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate— mostly agreeing with the amendments, sometimes quite enthusiastically.
One thing we have perhaps not covered before is the providers of gas and safety certificates and electrical safety checks being the people who upload that information on to the database, rather than putting the onus entirely on the landlords. This sounds rather radical, but it is in fact quite an important piece of the jigsaw. We do this with our MOTs: it is the MOT provider who has looked after the car who sends the information to the DVLA; you can record this pretty much instantly, without a lot of hassle. This also already happens with energy performance certificates: it is the provider of the certificate who uploads it on to the database. So this is not a huge jump.
I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments, for which I express appreciation. Basically, we are all on side, and things will be added to the list of contents that are included in this, but I get the unfortunate feeling that we are going to take this at a rather gentle pace. We have to wait for the secondary legislation, extensive testing and trials, bringing forward each piece one step at a time. This may be sensible, but it will be quite frustrating, given that there is such potential. There is an opportunity here for the database to make a real difference.
I thank all participants, and the Minister in particular, but I urge that we press on with this as soon as possible, because it is a really valuable tool and will make a big difference. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Negotiations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The economic prosperity agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States is a welcome but limited first step towards a comprehensive free trade agreement. As such, it signifies a positive move towards strengthening the special relationship with our most important ally. Indeed, it was particularly refreshing to see that the special relationship was explicitly acknowledged as one of the three core objectives. If the relationship is to endure, it must be based, as the document says, on fairness and reciprocity.
The United States is the UK’s largest bilateral trading partner outside the EU, with trade in goods and services valued at over £310 billion in 2023. Following the costs imposed by the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, this agreement brings some relief to sectors in our economy. For example, tariffs on UK vehicles have been reduced from 25% to 10%, benefiting up to 100,000 vehicles annually, as well as attendant auto parts. With UK car exports to the US worth £7 billion last year, this is an important development and will provide some relief. As Mike Hawes of the SMMT noted:
“The agreement announced today to reduce tariffs on UK car exports into the US is great news for the industry and consumers. The application of these tariffs was a severe and immediate threat to UK automotive exporters so this deal will provide much needed relief, allowing both the industry, and those that work in it, to approach the future more positively”.
We take Mr Hawes’s words at face value.
Similarly, the removal of tariffs on steel and aluminium, which had disrupted £400 million-worth of exports, is welcome news for our manufacturing sectors. But can the Minister say what exactly will the fact that the US is constructing a quota at most favoured nation rates for UK steel and aluminium products mean in practice, and particularly for the troubled British Steel?
In agriculture, US beef export quotas to the UK have increased from 1,000 to 13,000 metric tonnes, and negotiations are expected to continue on pork, poultry, rice and seafood—sectors where the United States has significant export interest and capacity. The US Agriculture Secretary has made it clear that these areas are priorities in their trade agenda. As further discussions progress, it will be important that they take into account the structure and needs of the UK’s own farming sector. Although there is broad support for open and competitive markets, we know that some British producers, particularly in poultry and seafood, have raised questions around production practices and the cost implications of different regulatory approaches.
The agreement acknowledges that both countries will
“comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary … standards”.
Can the Minister therefore update the House on the nature of conversations held with domestic farming representatives so far, and on how the Government expect ongoing negotiations in this area to progress? Are there any major areas, apart from the frequently trailed chlorine-washed chicken, which may cause difficulties?
There is also very limited detail on digital trade, despite the Government’s ambition, set out in their AI opportunities plan, to position the UK as a global leader in emerging technologies. We would welcome clarity on how this agreement supports the goal in practice but acknowledge the commitment to negotiate an ambitious set of digital trade provisions. Can the Minister update the House on what discussions are under way regarding the future of the digital services tax?
Moreover, the agreement states that the UK will receive preferential treatment if new tariffs are not imposed as part of the US Section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals and other products. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what that means. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 provides the President with the ability to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce that the products under investigation are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.
So preferential treatment sounds positive, but we are awaiting clarity on what it means in practice. Will it mean lower tariffs, exemptions or more lenient treatment than other countries may receive? This is crucial for the UK’s pharmaceutical sector in particular, and we need transparency on the details of this arrangement. How will that impact our relationship with Ireland, which is home to a number of pharmaceutical companies with extensive operations here? On the subject of Ireland, can the Minister enlighten us as to exactly how Northern Ireland will be affected by this deal?
Note that security of supply chains in our exports is explicit in this agreement. China has expressed concern, suggesting that it could lead to the exclusion of Chinese products from British supply chains, and it may risk breaching international trade norms. In light of the Government’s stated intention to reset and stabilise relations with China, it is important to understand how these concerns are being managed. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that progress with one strategic partner does not inadvertently compromise engagement with another?
Furthermore, in the context of the UK’s economic and financial dialogue agreement with China, which includes co-operation on pharmaceuticals and financial services, how do the Government assess the potential impact of this new US deal on future negotiations in those same sectors? I appreciate that the Statement refers to other sectors, including copper, lumber, film production, semiconductors and critical minerals, but the themes of national security and defence run through this document, and obviously they represent the foundation of the special relationship. However, I note that no mention is made of the defence sector, so could the noble Baroness perhaps update us on discussions in that space?
The agreement states that:
“Both countries intend to build on an existing set of Mutual Recognition Agreements … by negotiating additional agreements … across certain industrial goods”.
How does that square with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is currently in the Commons? Superficially, this would suggest that the Government should have accepted some of our amendments in this area, but I say to the noble Baroness opposite that it is not too late.
While tariffs on UK exports have been reduced, the US baseline tariff of 10% remains higher than pre-President Trump levels. We should acknowledge the progress but also recognise that this still represents a return to a less favourable environment for UK exports. What this country needs is a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States to alleviate these challenges to our businesses.
It would be remiss at this point not to mention that small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy, need clarity on how they will benefit from this agreement. Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that practical measures to boost SME access to the US market remain unclear.
In conclusion, while this agreement represents important progress, it is clear that much remains to be done. The Government must now focus on expanding the deal to include services, investment and small business support, ensuring all sectors are given a fair chance to thrive. I have one last question, which has been asked and evaded every day this week. Will Parliament have a say?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Motor Group, I must say that this agreement was good news for the UK car industry or, perhaps more importantly, it was less bad news—coming in where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, left off. In truth, manufacturers will still see a rise from pre-Trump tariffs of 2.5% to post-Trump ones of 10%, but that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that was being faced and jobs will be saved, which is good news. As a key shareholder in the industry, I am sure the Government will welcome the moves on steel as well.
But on those and on the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and I think it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. To date, the Government have not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry. That leaves us in the dark at the moment as to what Ministers have really given up in exchange for these lower tariffs.
I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons:
“On ethanol, we … are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/25; col. 35.]
This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, when I met staffers of senior senators and asked them what their number one red line was, the most popular response was “Ethanol”. If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the Government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on domestic suppliers. Yet it seems only now is that process under way. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be under way?
The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that imports would not compromise our standards, so can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by uprating the tariff rate quota for so-called “high-quality” beef? To put this into context, can the Minister share the Government’s analysis of how much high-quality beef the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out in detail what border inspection regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standard of high-quality beef?
Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations the Government have had with their EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the United Kingdom?
Overall, how certain is any of this? For example, Trump 1 signed a full trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the USMCA, in 2018 and then Trump 2 threw this self-same deal out in his first week of this presidency. This UK-US agreement may have been endorsed by President Trump this month, but what confidence do the Government have that new demands will not be made next month, or the month after that—or at Christmas? Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our trading relationships with long-standing partners which do not change their views all the time, including the European Union and dependable allies such as Canada? Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House the Government’s analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners?
A further unanswered question, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US includes strict security requirements, particularly around the British steel and pharmaceutical industries. These requirements have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. How will the Government manage their relationship with China when President Xi knows that Trump is leaning on us in every way with our relationships? What is the Government’s message to China as a result of this deal?
The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement begs many questions, but again, it seems the Government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement, we would expect it to be put before your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member. But so far, we have been starved of the involvement of the Grimstone agreement and we have not really been taken in on this. Can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement?
Even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the Government. The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals are laid bare. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? If the Government do not follow this course, that will indicate that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified and lodged with the WTO. If it is not a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO most favoured nation rules the UK will have to offer similar tariff-free entry to all other countries, not just the United States. Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO. That requires a full CRaG process in your Lordships’ House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their remarks and the questions they have asked today. Of course, we recognise the strong level of interest in this House in this historic trade deal that we have secured with the United States. To ensure that those interested can see for themselves precisely what has been agreed, the general terms of the deal have now been published on GOV.UK and a copy has been placed in the Library.
As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are living in a new world now, one
“less governed by established rules and more by deals and alliances”.
Our vision is to leverage our relationships with other powerhouse economies to make the UK a global hub for trade and investment. This is why last Thursday we reached an agreement on the basis of an economic prosperity deal with the United States. But I say in answer to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that this is a deal; it is not a full-blown treaty. We need to be absolutely clear about that.
Our trading relationship with the US, worth £315 billion per year, is now set to grow. We already have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and between us we employ about 2.5 million people across both countries. That is why the deal is so important. Saving thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs that are vital for our economy is essential, protecting jobs in the automotive, steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors, which employ over 320,000 people across the UK. In addition, an estimated 260,000 jobs are supported across the economy by the auto industry alone.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, said that the deal on the automotive sector brought welcome relief. I agree with that. For the car industry, we have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles which reduced tariffs from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an arrangement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role the sector plays in our economy. We have already seen Jaguar Land Rover come out in support of the deal. It is very positive news for iconic British manufacturers such as McLaren and Morgan.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the future of the steel sector. For steel and aluminium, the deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs to an average of 0.6% for steel, including derivatives, and 2.7% for aluminium, including derivatives. This is a major victory for steelmaking in the UK. It reassures us that steelmaking is alive and well in this country, thanks to the action that this Government are taking, providing a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agriculture. For UK beef farmers we have delivered unprecedented market access. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef, through an exclusive UK quota, to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market. The NFU has long campaigned for this, and this Government have delivered. I want to be crystal clear: agriculture imports to the UK will still have to meet our high-quality food and animal welfare standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox—or maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—asked whether we were engaging with the farming community. I confirm that colleagues in Defra regularly engage with the farming organisations, and indeed with the NFU, on this issue of market access.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about statistics to do with beef. I have to say that I do not have those to hand, but obviously I am happy to write with the detail of those proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the digital services tax. I reassure him that there are no changes to that tax in the agreement.
The noble Lord also asked about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector. For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, the deal provides assurances that we will receive significant preferential access in the case of any new US tariffs in future, something that only the UK has so far secured. The pharmaceutical manufacturing sector alone contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, so that is a welcome move.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about Northern Ireland. I confirm that we have closely considered the impact of this agreement on Northern Ireland. First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exports can access the US markets under this deal on the same basis as those from the rest of the UK. Secondly, the deal does not affect how imports in Northern Ireland operate, and Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under the deal can avoid unnecessary duties within the established Windsor Framework schemes, such as the UK internal market scheme. As we have said all along, we continue to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lords asked whether Parliament will have a say. I make it clear that the general terms document is not a treaty and will not be subject to a vote in Parliament. We will implement the terms of the existing deal in accordance with the appropriate domestic processes. To be clear, we are not seeking any change in the process of ratification of any duty. Members of this House will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed and presented to the House.
If I have missed out any of their points, I will of course write to noble Lords. To summarise, the deal shows what can be achieved through pragmatism, diplomacy and acting in the national interest. It shows the UK to be a key and influential player on the world stage, and one that can get deals done. We are sending a message to the world that Britain remains open for business, we will protect jobs and investment, we will boost and defend our industries, and we will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the Conservative Opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for the Liberal Democrats, were as one in commending the remarkable change this deal represents from the initial proposals of President Trump. I adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says about the role of Parliament. Both of us happily serve on the International Agreements Committee, and we know that our Parliament must be very jealous of the way in which such a treaty would be dealt with in the US Congress. What is clear, although unstated by both those earlier speakers, is that any objective observer will surely praise the role that the Prime Minister has played in his relationship with President Trump. He has played it extremely skilfully to change positively the initial deal that was proposed. This is obviously a very limited deal and the best we can get in the circumstances. Is this the end of the story or are there other parts of our trading relationship that are still on the table and from which we expect to see some positive developments? If there are such other elements from which we can optimistically hope for further developments, what are they?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Prime Minister has played a brilliant role in all this and got one of the best deals that has been negotiated anywhere around the world, so we absolutely give him all the credit due for that. My noble friend asked whether this is the beginning or the end. This deal marks only the beginning. We are continuing to talk on the wider UK-US economic deal that will look at increasing digital trade, access for our world-leading service industries and improving supply chains. The US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 April across our economy. The Government will continue to act in Britain’s national interest for workers, businesses and families.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, following the Minister’s comments about the next phase, financial and professional business services are Britain’s leading industry here in London but with two-thirds of the jobs overseas. On the goods agreement so far, some £59 billion-worth were exported to the USA in 2024, while £119 billion of services were exported to the USA in 2023. This is potentially a moment of great opportunity for the United Kingdom in financial and professional business services. We have a unique position between the USA and Europe, and we can have a great platform here as an independent, neutral and very powerful player in this space. With our shared roots in common law with the United States, this is also a strong opportunity for us, so can Minister assure us that financial and professional business services will be a central part of the agenda as we move forward to the next stage?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a vital point. It is very much an area where we can have shared benefit. The trade strategy is aimed at achieving long-term, sustainable, inclusive and resilient growth throughout trade, supported by a rigorous economic and geopolitical analysis that will set out how we can take some of these issues forward. The noble Lord is right about the contributions that we can make to the US and the contributions that it can make to us. I think that the leaders of both countries understand that we have joint benefits in common, and I am absolutely convinced that we can take these issues forward and make further trade deals on that basis.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, as my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, will the new agreement operate with most favoured nation rules, which, as she knows, means that the lowest tariff offered to one country must be offered to all? The reason why I ask whether the agreement is consistent with the MFN rules is because Mr Navarro, the architect of President Trump’s trade policy, as recently as 8 April wrote a very strong article in the Financial Times criticising the MFN rules. The alternative to those rules is, of course, reciprocal tariffs, which Mr Trump has been proselytising, but that would lead to a much more complicated system of international trade, with a huge amount of business bureaucracy, and to commercial chaos throughout the world. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
The second question that I would like to ask relates to the 10% basic tariff. The Minister indicated that the Government might want or be able to negotiate further on that. The 10% tariff obviously places businesses in Britain at a disadvantage compared with where they were before, but it is strange that the 10% applies to Britain because the object of American policy is to remove imbalances in the trade system, and Britain had no imbalance in goods, as President Trump acknowledged. The implication seems to be that the 10% is going to apply to all countries throughout the world which, as the Governor of the Bank of England said, is bad news not just for Britain but for the whole world.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I can confirm that we will maintain our status with all the international obligations that we currently have, including with the most favoured status and the WTO. Both of them are very important for our status going forward.
The noble Lord raises the question of the 10% tariff. As we know, the deal removes the 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and autos, but the US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 April across our economy. We are continuing to negotiate in the interests of key sectors for the UK and, obviously, we will seek the best possible outcomes for those vital parts of the economy and those that are vital to our critical infrastructure. A whole range of negotiations will continue, including on that 10% tariff impact.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeating the Statement. The Statement says:
“We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement”. —[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/25; col. 898.]
Could my noble friend outline the detail of those discussions with, for example, the First Ministers in Northern Ireland? I recently had a letter from the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland in which he stated that the detailed elements of guidance had not been provided to them. Will that guidance be provided to the Northern Ireland Executive, who can then provide it to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which will be directly impacted by all this? Will the Windsor Framework be protected?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think that all noble Lords will appreciate that discussions with the US have taken place at pace. Throughout this, Ministers and officials have had significant levels of engagement with the devolved Governments on both the US tariffs and progress on talks with the US.
My noble friend asked specifically about Northern Ireland. As it is part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory and internal market, exporters can access the US market under this deal on the same basis as the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland businesses importing US goods under this deal can use the schemes established under the Windsor Framework to avoid any necessary duties. As we have said all along, we will continue to act in the best interests of UK businesses, which of course include those in Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness asked particularly whether further guidance will be spelled out. These discussions have been taken forward at pace, but of course we will work out that guidance and present it as soon as possible.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the deal that has been struck is clearly limited in scope. However, it is clear that the Government see this as part one of a wider package that will develop and will be particularly significant in terms of pharmaceuticals, in which I think we will show a good deal of interest. It is also the case that, while it is limited in scope, those aspects and sectors of the economy which have been dealt with in the deal have been dealt with quite significantly.
To follow up on the questions about Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has been left in a different customs regime from the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly as regards imports. Although the Minister makes reference to the reimbursement scheme, that has been very cumbersome and lengthy and is a very difficult hurdle for many businesses to overcome. What specific steps will the Government be taking, first, to improve that scheme, to make sure that it delivers; and, secondly, what actions will the Government be initiating with the United States to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are able to gain full benefit from this deal?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Well, my Lords, as I just said, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and we will all have those benefits together, including Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asked about the customs duty waiver scheme. There is, as he knows, a comprehensive tariff reimbursement scheme. Of course, we continue to keep such schemes under review. Nevertheless, we are still operating under the Windsor Framework and, as such, the internal market scheme will apply.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this agreement —another Brexit dividend. Knowing the Government’s dedication to international law, I am sure they regret that this deal rewards the flagrant violation of WTO rules by Trump’s imposition of discriminatory tariffs. I accept that they had little option but to ignore that violation, but why are they now proposing to reward the EU for its flagrant flouting of rules on SPS checks? The WTO rules are quite clear:
“Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade”,
which is what is happening at present. They go on to say:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.
Our rules do not differ; they are identical. There is no legal case for checks at the border on our exports of food and goods to Europe. Why are the Government proposing to make concessions which are in any case unnecessary? They claim it would reduce the cost of food imports from Europe, but we can unilaterally not impose checks on those food imports, as we have done for three of the last four years.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the WTO rules are still a very important part of our international trade system, and we remain a committed member of the WTO and a keen supporter of the multilateral trading system. The WTO has made global trade more predictable and, indeed, it plays a vital role in providing stability and predictability for businesses and consumers around the world. The noble Lord asked about the EU. We are in early discussions with the EU. That is a separate set of discussions. Nothing has been agreed, but we are moving along with those discussions and we look forward to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Did my noble friend hear, as I did, the leader of the Opposition today calling this a “tiny tariff deal”? Given that she had had agreements only with Colorado, Oklahoma and states such as that, it would perhaps have been more generous of her to welcome it. Our right honourable friend in the other House said that this was a treaty, and my noble friend seems to be saying that it is not. That is really important, because if it is a treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says, that will come under the CRaG process. Can she clarify whether this will be a treaty and therefore have to come before both Houses?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, my understanding is that this is a trade deal but not a treaty in the normal sense. We are not seeking to change the process of the ratification of any treaty once we receive it. MPs will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed, but we are not at that stage yet. When it is agreed, it will be presented to the House and the implementation will still have to come to Parliament. At the moment, this is not a legally binding document, but there will be a vote on the legal framework and the secondary legislation, and it will be processed through parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharpe pointed to the absence of any reference to the defence industry. That may be another sector that is to be dealt with in future negotiations but I would certainly like to know what proposals there might be in relation to arms sales on a reciprocal basis.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, defence does not form part of the deal we have in front of us today but, as I said, there are a number of other areas where negotiations are continuing and we hope to have a much more comprehensive deal with the US as quickly as we can. I am sure that defence will be a consideration in those discussions.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that this deal has been warmly welcomed in steel and in the automotive industry, not just JLR. Not everybody realises we export a significant number of Minis to the United States, so it is good news there too.
I have two very quick questions. The first is about labour rights and how they will be protected and advanced as this deal progresses—that would be useful to know. My noble friend the Minister may be aware that under the previous Government and the previous Administration in the United States there was a quad—involving the TUC, our sister trade union centre, the AFL-CIO, the Secretary for Trade, and the US ambassador for trade—which was involved in consulting and developing those labour rights discussions.
Secondly, is it envisaged that there will be an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism? As my noble friend the Minister is very aware, concerns have been expressed that the mechanism models we have to date privilege the interests of big corporations over those of citizens and workers. Her answer will be very important, particularly when we get to the stage of talking about big tech and technology.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the wider consultation that needs to take place and, of course, we take the issue of labour rights and labour representation very seriously. As I said, this deal has been put together very quickly. There is a lot more work and consultation to be done on this. We want to make sure that when we get the detail of the treaty it is absolutely fit for purpose and that everybody in the UK will benefit from it. Wherever possible, we intend to make it in the interests of business but also of the workers and citizens of this country. That will be the essence of a good trade deal.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the much-discussed issue of security requirements—the American requirements that there be security of the supply chain for steel and aluminium. In the document, that requirement applies not just to steel and aluminium but to the pharmaceutical sector. Indeed, it envisages that it will also apply to all other sectors where there will be agreements. This seems to now be a general requirement of the American trade relationship with us. My simple question is: are these security requirements set out in a document anywhere or will they be subject to ongoing discussion with the Government in the future?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I will need to check what is already set out in writing. There is a good deal more work to do on the background information that will need to be set out. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Fox (LD)
Can the Minister share that response with Front Benches as well, please?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, further to the earlier question from the noble Baroness opposite, what my noble friend seemed to be saying was that defence does not form a part of these negotiations, but it will form a part of the next stage in the process. Am I right in thinking that?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My understanding is that all issues and opportunities are being explored at the current time, so we are not able to rule anything out. I certainly cannot say that defence will not be part of those discussions. We are looking at every opportunity when it is in the UK’s interests, and I am sure we will pursue everything on that basis.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
“(d) entries in respect of all landlord notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, to be registered within 7 days of service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require entries to the database to include notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 within 7 days of registration.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I reassure noble Lords, with regard to time, that the amendments in this group, in my name and those of other noble Lords —and there are a quite a lot of them—all work together and function as a pack. Therefore, my description of these amendments working together will actually be quite brief. The amendments look to strengthen the link between compliance with the private rented sector database and the lawful use of eviction powers. I appreciate that I am pushing the envelope a little bit and I will be genuinely interested in the Minister’s response.
These amendments are rooted in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations—and we do, and we hope for more compliance: that is what the whole Bill is about—such as registering on the new database, which, following our previous discussions, is going to be the whizziest, wonderful game-changer, there really must be meaningful consequences when they do not. Currently, the Bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlord’s ability to issue a Section 8 notice. These amendments aim to correct that, or at least to open up a discussion about it.
Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any Section 8 eviction notice on the database within seven days of issuing it. This would support greater transparency, help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use and ensure that there is a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised. Can the Minister say how we gather that data accurately, if not through this? It is important data and without it we lose very valuable oversight.
Amendments 235, 238, 239 and 240 would prevent a Section 8 eviction notice being considered valid if the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 83(3) of the Bill—namely, the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling on the database. These are not minor or excessive requirements; they are fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that, if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction.
Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection (3) and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group helps to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should be available only to those who follow the rules. That in turn builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals. They are proportionate and targeted and go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve: a fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group. The issues of database fees and possession restrictions are of real significance, and this group is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions made today, I will speak to the amendments in this group that I have tabled. Amendment 228C seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on this point. Under what conditions do the Government foresee such charges being applied?
Amendment 228E, also in my name, would prevent the costs of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter. This part of the Bill seems entirely unfair on law-abiding landlords. We want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Could the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear the costs of enforcement targeted at those who fail to meet their legal obligations?
Amendment 228F seeks to remove subsection (4)(d), which includes the costs of enforcement action imposed by the Bill in relation to the private rented sector. Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database, but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of Ministers seeking additional and wider-ranging powers as a belt-and-braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable, but we need to make sure that the fees charged under this clause remain reasonable. We know that this will increase the costs of business for landlords, so we need to ensure that the costs are both reasonable and proportionate. We are concerned that this wide definition of “relevant costs” may result in unreasonably high costs.
Perhaps I can press the Minister to give the Committee some sense of what the fees will be like, and how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must bear in mind that it is usually the tenants who bear these costs through their rents in the future. Overall, what are the predicted costs of setting up and running the database, and what are the costs likely to be to the landlord?
Many landlords are small-scale and independent; they are not corporate landlords, with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pension or to provide long-term family support. For the database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible.
On Amendment 228G, clear communication of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust and helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion or frustration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I do not think is in his place anymore, for their amendments regarding database fees and possession restrictions.
I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 223 would mandate that the database operator establishes and operates the database so that it contains entries in respect of Section 8 possession notices, with such entries to be recorded on the database within seven days of the landlord serving them. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. We are actively exploring collecting possession information on the database. We have identified various potential benefits to collecting this data—for example, it may support local authorities in identifying where possession grounds have been misused or where tenants are at risk of homelessness. It could also be useful to prospective tenants in making choices about where to rent, so I agree with her on that.
However, our research has also highlighted some challenges, particularly around accuracy and reliance on landlords self-reporting. We will need to consider carefully how these issues could be managed. I am also keen to impress upon the noble Baroness and the Committee that we do not think the information the database collects should be on in the Bill; we discussed that on the previous group. Our research has consistently demonstrated that it is imperative that the database can be adapted to meet future needs. Therefore, the data it collects should be set out in regulations. This is already possible through the regulation-making power in Clause 78, which the Government will use to outline registration requirements. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendments 235, 236 and 238 to 240, taken together, propose changing the Bill’s provisions so that landlords cannot serve notice for possession under Section 8 nor be granted repossession by the courts if they are not compliant with database registration requirements. In addition, the amendments would mean not only that landlords would need to be registered but that their entries would need to be up to date in order for notices served to be valid. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do this by adding a provision in the Bill for updating Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988, which refers to courts’ powers to order possession to be updated to effect compliance relating to the database.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also proposes amendments to the wording of Clause 91 so that it refers to Section 83(3) as a whole. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned with incentivising landlords to comply with regulation and therefore sees the value in replicating some of the safeguards that have been in place for serving Section 21 notices. I agree that landlords who have not met the basic obligation of registering on the database should not be able to gain possession of a property. This is an important incentive for landlords to register and supports the role of the database in driving up standards in the sector. However, the Bill will already update the Housing Act 1988 to prevent landlords being granted possession by the courts if they do not have an active database entry for themselves and the property. This is a proportionate approach to stop landlords being granted possession where they have failed to meet their obligations.
The Bill also clearly sets out our expectation for landlords to maintain active database entries and to ensure that these are up to date. I reassure noble Lords that landlords who do not have an up-to-date entry in the database will be subject to enforcement action by local authorities. Regulations will stipulate the requirements for active and up-to-date entries, and in the meantime the criteria for gaining possession as outlined in the Bill provides an appropriate level of protection for tenants against landlords who fail to register with the database without sanctioning landlords disproportionately. We do not want to risk creating a situation where landlords cannot use Section 8 grounds but have no alternative means of seeking possession. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to consider not pressing these amendments.
Amendments 228C, 228E, 228F, 228G and 237A were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 228C would remove the ability to make regulations requiring the payment of a fee as part of renewals when database entries become inactive. I understand that the noble Baroness is seeking further information on the circumstances in which a landlord could be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. It is the intention that, in addition to an initial registration fee, there will be a fee at the point of renewal. An entry will become inactive if it expires at the end of a registration period and will become active again upon renewal. Landlords will not be charged for updates between renewal points. In cases where a landlord elects to make an entry inactive because they are no longer letting the property, they will not be charged. We will set out in detail when active entries become inactive, and vice versa, in secondary legislation. Timelines for registration and renewal will similarly be set out in secondary legislation.
Amendment 228E would place a requirement on Ministers to give two months’ notice of any fee changes to landlords with an active database entry. It raises a useful point to consider as we develop the database. We agree on the need for landlords to receive clear and timely communication about any changes in fees and to understand when a fee is required. As we develop the database, we are considering the required communications to landlords to help them understand their obligations, including payment of fees. We are also considering how we can design the database to facilitate this in a timely way. As we are already considering these points as we develop our proposals for implementation, we do not consider this amendment necessary.
Amendments 228F and 228G would remove the ability to set database fees with reference to costs of enforcing database requirements and to wider PRS enforcement costs respectively. This would mean that any fees could be calculated only by reference to operational costs and functions of the database. Effective enforcement is essential for the successful operation of the database. Without it, there will be no means to take action if landlords fail to sign up or provide the correct information. We have heard throughout the passage of this Bill the challenges with local housing authority resourcing and capacity for enforcement. Removing the option to factor in the costs of checking and taking action against any non-compliance would, in the long term, leave local housing authorities out of pocket and limit the database’s effectiveness.
As for wider enforcement costs, we believe that it is right that, as far as possible, the costs of enforcement should be met by those flouting the rules. Ultimately, all landlords, as well as the public and, most importantly, tenants, benefit from a well-regulated and enforced PRS. Clause 82 provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide much-needed revenue to support enforcement activity. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about fees, the fee level will not be set arbitrarily. The Bill provides that the relevant costs that can be recovered via the fee can be based on the cost of establishing and operating the database and the cost of performing the functions required under the database legislation and of enforcing the database and wider PRS legislation. We will ensure that decisions about fees take into account a range of factors, including of course the burden on landlords. Fees will be set out in secondary legislation. We are in the process of developing a calculation and structure for fees. The fee level will need to reflect the operating costs of the digital tool, which is currently in development, and may also be used to fund local authority enforcement. We are in the process of designing the database as a bespoke tool, so we are developing our understanding of what our expected costs will be. This has been set out in the impact assessment. The costs may be subject to change as our plans for delivery and implementation develop, so I am not able to give the noble Baroness an exact answer at the moment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Surely there is a budget, or even a proposed budget, that will go to the Treasury to deliver this scheme.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As with all future funding for our department and every other department, spending review bids have gone in. I will take her request back to the department to see whether we are able to be any clearer on that, but my understanding is that at the moment that we are not able to give an exact figure.
Noble Lords will be aware that these database fees will be set at a later point in regulations. I stress that in setting fees, we will ensure, and we have always been clear, that the fees will be fair and take into account the cost to landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked me about the accountability of the database operator. I will write to her on that point, if that is okay. For the reasons I have set out I do not think that it would be beneficial to the private rented sector database, or the reforms more widely, to place these additional limits on what relevant costs may be recoverable via the database fees.
The Bill will make it a legal requirement for residential landlords to ensure that they and their rental properties are registered on the database before a court can grant a possession order and they can gain possession of their property. Clause 91(1) amends Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 so that a court can order possession only where there is an active entry in the database for both the landlord and the dwelling. Clause 91(1) also stipulates that possession orders made on grounds relating to anti-social behaviour are exempted from this requirement.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down— I am probably breaking the rules, but I do so for very good reason—I want to state to the Committee that that she was quite right on Amendment 237, and I was quite wrong.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely accept that my amendments were pushing at the boundaries. However, at their heart is protecting tenants from being evicted by a landlord who is acting unlawfully, almost as a matter of principle.
However, I accept that the Minister is confident that the Bill as it stands should drive compliance and that, therefore, my amendments will be unnecessary. My answer to that is that only time will tell. That leads us to group 13, where we will talk about reviews and why we need them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who articulated some concerns and felt that maybe we could open a dialogue on this issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“(e) create provisions for financial penalties for non-compliance with the requirements for a database entry, including, but not limited to, provision for a rent repayment order where a person has failed to ensure that a required entry is up-to-date and active.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include rent repayments orders for non-registration of the database created under this Act.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am working overtime tonight. In moving my Amendment 226 I will speak to my Amendment 257 and support a number of important amendments in this group, including those from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose contributions I look forward to.
As colleagues will know, rent repayment orders remain one of the few enforcement mechanisms that are available directly to tenants. That is the key. They are not just about recompense; they are about ensuring that landlords meet their legal obligations and that tenants are protected when they do not, and recompense is made. Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that rent repayment orders can be applied where a landlord has failed to register on the private sector database established by the Bill. If we are serious about transparency and raising standards, non-compliance with the system we are creating must carry real consequences. I am starting to feel like a broken record, but noble Lords will get the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the database and the wider enforcement regime is seriously undermined.
Amendment 257 seeks to extend rent repayment orders further to cover cases where landlords have failed to join a redress scheme or maintain active entries on the new database. This amendment relates strongly to amendments in the previous group and on the enforceability of the database. If we want a rental system that is responsive, accountable and fair, we must ensure that tenants have clear recourse when landlords do not engage with these fundamental duties.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for Amendment 244A, which adjusts the standard proof in some cases to the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This change is both proportionate and pragmatic. We know that gathering evidence can be an enormous burden for tenants. This amendment helps to address that imbalance while preserving important legal safeguards in more serious cases.
I also welcome the suite of government amendments in this group, which bring clarity to how rent repayment amounts are calculated and to which offences fall within scope. These amendments, particularly those aligning the repayment period with a two-year window, provide much-needed consistency and support effective enforcement. The inclusion of new categories of offence and consequential changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are helpful and align with the overall intent of the Bill. However, I gently emphasise that, while the government amendments are welcome, they will be significantly strengthened by the additions proposed in my amendments. There is little point in creating systems to register landlords and offer redress if we do not give tribunals the power to act when landlords ignore them. Rent repayment orders are not a silver bullet, but they are an important tool to renters. We should not pass up the opportunity to make them more robust, more comprehensive and more effective in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I agreed with every word she said in her excellent opening speech. I will speak to Amendment 244A in my name. This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders pursued only on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act offence. By changing the evidential standard for these rent repayment orders from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “balance of probabilities”, Amendment 244A will provide parity with the normal work of the tribunal and provide encouragement to tenants and those who assist them to claim redress, which was Parliament’s intention by including Protection from Eviction Act offences among the things that rent repayment orders could be claimed for. In short, the current requirement of a criminal standard of proof thwarts that intention.
Rent repayment orders are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, and the first-tier property tribunal is not a criminal court. A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. The first-tier property tribunal does not follow criminal procedural rules or result in a criminal sentence or criminal record if a defendant is convicted. However, the tribunals require a criminal standard of proof. In addition, rent repayment orders are often brought by self-represented applicants seeking to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord as compensation, and legal aid is not available for rent repayment order claims. For these reasons alone, it is therefore inappropriate that rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences should apply the criminal standard of proof.
Moreover, a civil claim in a civil court for a legal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard. This is despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages, rather than just the chance to apply for repayment of rent paid. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to Protection from Eviction Act rent repayment orders in line with the rest of the civil law, and this is what Amendment 244A does.
Why does getting rid of this illogical anomaly matter? First, the nature of Protection from Eviction Act offences means they are often impossible to prove to the criminal standard. Often, landlords change the locks on tenants and dispose of their possessions when renters are not at home. Illegal evictions and harassment occur in the privacy of a renter’s home, often without witnesses. The criminal burden places an extra, often insurmountable, burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It also has a chilling effect of preventing claims being brought in the first place, as the evidence available for these offences is unlikely to meet the standard. Under the standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for rent repayment orders as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even where it is clear that an offence has occurred that only the landlord would be motivated to commit. This weakens enforcement and access to justice, and undermines the whole purpose of the rent repayment order legislation.
Secondly, the incredibly low number of rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting and the University of York have done research which estimates that over the two-year period from 2021 to 2022, there were at least 16,000 illegal evictions—a figure which is almost certainly an undercount.
Meanwhile, data gathered by the organisation Marks Out Of Tenancy shows that, over the same time period, there were just 31 rent repayment orders on the Protection from Eviction Act ground that were successful. Despite the large number of illegal evictions recorded by individuals and organisations assisting them, people are not applying for rent repayment orders as a source of redress. The higher criminal standard results in tenants and those assisting them considering an application not worth pursuing.
Thirdly and finally, with the forthcoming abolition of Section 21, criminal and unscrupulous landlords, who are the minority of landlords, might take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting or harassing their tenants, as they know how hard it is for tenants to enforce against them in the First-tier Tribunal. Rent repayment orders are realistically the only option for renters to enforce their rights without legal representation. It therefore has never been more important to strengthen the rent repayment order regime for Protection from Eviction Act offences so that renters can enforce their rights and gain access to justice for these life-changing offences.
These offences are some of the most egregious a landlord can commit—illegal eviction, attempted illegal eviction and harassment. The physical, mental and financial impact of these offences on renters and their families cannot be overstated. I look forward to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s reply. I am sure she will want to reflect on the wider debate today. I hope she will agree to meet with me and Safer Renting—experts in this field—to discuss the aim of Amendment 244 before Report to see what can be done.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Baronesses. They are clearly very powerful advocates for private rental tenants, who very much need them.
I will speak specifically to Amendment 257, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name; it having passed the lark hour, we are now into the Green owl hour of the evening. Before I do that, I want to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a hugely powerful argument on the inequality of arms in the rental tribunal. The judgment level the noble Baroness suggested is clearly the right one.
I will mostly speak to Amendment 257 which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, would enable the tribunal to make a rental repayment order where a landlord has failed to join a landlord redress scheme or have active entries in the private rented sector database. This is a simple and clear process in which the tenant can get what they are owed when the landlord has failed.
In preparing for this, I had a look at the Citizens Advice website and the advice it provides for tenants. It is telling that there has been real progress on some issues—for example, recovering rental deposits—in the past decade or so, but there are still far too many cases where renters are left stranded. People are in situations where they are left homeless or desperately trying to find a new rental property. Do they have the time, energy or resources to chase, go through the courts and take all of the procedures that they need to? This approach has worked well for tenancy deposit schemes. Renters get their money back from the landlord and all landlords know they need to register deposits or else pay the price. This is a proven system; it is a case of extending a proven system to deliver justice. Both the non-government amendments in this group are terribly important.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion on the seventh group of amendments, which addresses important changes to the rent repayment orders. These amendments seek to strengthen the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breach laws and ensure that rent repayment orders are both fair and effective.
The proposals tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raise significant points that warrant our attention. Among them, we see the suggestion to register RROs on a public database, which would make the existence of these orders transparent, allowing tenants and others to be aware of landlords with a history of non-compliance. This could serve as a powerful deterrent against landlords who might otherwise continue to disregard their responsibilities.
In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid in an RRO, as well as to extend the ability of tribunals to issue RROs in the case of non-registration on the public database. We need to ensure that the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and that tenants receive a fair outcome. Although it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss, as outlined so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, where a landlord has inadvertently breached a regulation and received a fine, but no harm has been done to a tenant, should they also receive a rent repayment order?
These Benches accept that rent repayment orders are an important tool for holding landlords to account and we welcome the intention to make these processes more accessible and transparent for tenants. However, we note that there are complex issues surrounding the practicalities of RROs, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and their scope.
Therefore, I ask the Government to respond to the following points. How do they propose to ensure that these amendments, particularly those relating to the registration of RROs, do not place unnecessary burdens on tribunals or create unintended consequences for landlords, who may not be aware of the rules? How do the Government intend to address the issue of non-registration on the database and the potential impact on landlords who fail to comply?
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.
I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register.
For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement.
In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this.
Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced.
We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment.
Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument.
I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.
We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole.
Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence.
The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.
I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions.
We all agree, I think, that it is really disappointing that rent repayment orders—such a valuable tool—are so rarely used. Let us hope that the changes outlined by the Minister work and that the whole renting culture changes, with tenants’ empowerment. As we have gone through this process, we are beginning to see all the impacts of the Bill and how they should all work together to produce that change; perhaps an increase in the number of RROs will be an indication that things are improving.
I follow the logic of the Minister’s arguments, as on my previous amendments, but I hope that we have given her food for thought. I withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
I am going to have to beg your Lordships’ patience; I have quite a lot of pages to read through now.
Member’s explanatory statement
This enables a database operator to disclose information from the database to the Secretary of State.
“(aa) in line 5 of the table in that subsection, in the third column, for “control or management of unlicensed HMO” substitute “offences relating to unlicensed HMOs”; (ab) in line 6 of the table in that subsection, in the third column, for “control or management of unlicensed house” substitute “offences relating to unlicensed houses”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This updates the description of offences under section 72(1) and 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004 to reflect changes made to those provisions by clause 105 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name amending clause 99 to insert a new row into section 44(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deal with this case.
“(aa) in subsection (2), after the first row of the table insert—
“an offence mentioned in row 2B of the table in section 40(3) | the period of 2 years ending with the date of the offence or, if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends”;” |
This provides that the amount of rent to be repaid under a rent repayment order in relation to an offence under section 16J(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is to be calculated by reference to the rent paid in respect of the two years prior to either the date of the offence, or if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name amending clause 99 to insert a new row into section 45(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deal with this case.
“(aa) in subsection (2), after the first row of the table insert—
“an offence mentioned in row 2B of the table in section 40(3) | the period of 2 years ending with the date of the offence or, if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends”;” |
This provides that the amount of rent to be repaid under a rent repayment order in relation to an offence under section 16J(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is to be calculated by reference to the rent paid in respect of the two years prior to either the date of the offence, or if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thought that my amendment was never going to come. Amendment 249 stands in my name, and I am glad to support Amendment 252, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 250 and 251 in this group. I declare my interest as co-owner, with my wife, of one rather modest apartment in the West Midlands, which we let out.
As someone who has chaired a wide range of housing associations, including a large local authority transfer and an arm’s-length management company, I have seen the huge positive impact that the decent homes standard has had since one was first applied to social housing. Not least, it has forced landlords to pay proper attention to their existing stock, rather than focusing all their energies and resources on new developments. Hence, I am delighted that this Bill will, for the first time, extend the standard to much of the private rented stock; it is a sector desperately plagued by underinvestment in repairs, maintenance and stock improvement. One in five privately rented homes does not currently meet the decent homes standard compared to 10% for social housing. More than one in 10 has a category 1 hazard, which is two and a half times the figure for social housing.
My amendment, along with those in the names of other noble Lords that I wish to support in this group, seeks to test whether there is appetite in your Lordships’ House to extend the application of the standard to others whose homes will not be covered as the Bill stands. Amendment 249 would make the decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996. Record numbers of individuals, families and children are currently housed in temporary accommodation. Some 117,450 households were in temporary accommodation in March 2024, which was a rise of 12.3%, almost an extra one in eight, from the previous year. Extending the decent homes standard to this large group of people would enable those living in temporary accommodation to expect basic standards from their accommodation.
The very phrase temporary accommodation is something of a misnomer. Many of those who live in such properties are housed there for years at a time. Moreover, the same property may then be used for further so-called temporary tenancies. While I understand that sometimes it may appear better to allow a family to live for a short while in a property that is awaiting imminent major refurbishment or even demolition rather than leave the building empty, this is not what is happening in the vast majority of cases.
I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House the particular plight of children in temporary accommodation. I remember a very good conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, a year or two ago. The figure was then more than 130,000, and it is still rising. They are often housed many miles away from their schools and play friends. Managing an education in such a context is desperately difficult. Some schools in Manchester are already having to put on special provision for children living in temporary accommodation, so imagine what it means to have to do that in a home that does not meet a basic standard of decency. We are failing such children utterly. Alongside families with children, many residents in temporary accommodation have particular vulnerabilities in terms of health and are often not well equipped to advocate for themselves. A national standard will make a huge difference.
My amendment would close a glaring loophole in the current Bill whereby private landlords could escape the decent homes standard by switching to providing temporary accommodation. Allowing the poorest quality homes in our nation simply to move to another form of tenure without doing anything to tackle their condition defeats the whole object of extending the standard at all.
I shall not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose Amendment 250 would extend the standard to accommodation used by HM Armed Forces families, save to remind us that these households, containing those on whom we rely for our nation’s defence, deserve the very best from us.
Amendment 251 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Janke, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford, who cannot be in her place tonight, would extend the standard to accommodation provided for those who have fled war, terror and persecution and are now seeking, lawfully, to rebuild their lives here.
Amendment 252 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to which I have added my name, would extend the application of the decent homes standard to mobile homes that are rented for residential purposes. I have been a long-term advocate for the rights of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller households, which often experience levels of prejudice beyond that of almost any other ethnic group in our society. They simply seek live a way of life that they have followed for centuries and have long been a vital part of the workforce, especially in rural areas where short-term temporary agricultural workers with high mobility are required at particular points in the seasonal cycle.
These amendments seek to extend to some of our most vulnerable or deserving households a standard that the Bill already agrees is the proper one for most of our citizens. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will be able to indicate some movement or at least offer scope for further discussions with us on these important issues ahead of Report.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. In particular, I draw to your attention Amendment 250 in my name which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation used by service families.
Our service personnel and their families make extraordinary sacrifices for our safety and security. The very least we owe them is decent housing. The current state of service accommodation is, in many cases, unacceptable. Satisfaction levels with both service family accommodation, SFA, and single living accommodation, SLA, fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023 impacting recruitment and retention. The Defence Select Committee reports that one-third of SLA and two-thirds of SFA are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose. We hear persistent reports of damp and mould, inadequate maintenance and repairs and poor communication.
We cannot discuss the state of military housing without acknowledging the damaging legacy of some past decisions. The sale of 57,400 military homes to Annington Property Ltd in 1996 under the Conservative Government was described as a disastrous fire sale. The deal left the Government trapped paying rent and maintenance costs with no power to plan or make major upgrades. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that service families were,
“badly let down for many years”
under the previous housing contracts. The taxpayer was left nearly £8 billion worse off due to that original deal, with money that should have been spent on maintaining homes lost.
The current Labour Government have taken welcome steps. They repurchased 36,000 homes from Annington in January, a deal that is expected to save £230 million a year in rent. A defence housing review was launched in February. A new consumer charter promises measures such as higher move-in standards, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer for every family. It is welcome that the MoD has agreed with the conclusion that the current complaints process is inefficient and that a new, simpler, two-stage process is being devised.
I now come to the “however” bit, I am afraid. The scale of the problem is immense, a result of historic underinvestment over decades. Estimates suggest billions are needed, potentially £2 billion to £2.4 billion for SFA alone, and more than £1.5 billion for SLA. I reassure the Minister that we did our costings in our manifesto and definitely identified funding in some of these areas. While investment plans are being set out, questions remain about whether funding will be sufficient and sustained to address the condition of the entire estate.
Amendment 250 is crucial because it would continue the work of my colleague in the House of Commons, Helen Maguire MP, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq; it would reinforce the work of the MoD; and it would honour the Kerslake commission. It would ensure that the decent homes standard, which provides a very clear benchmark for acceptable housing quality, was legally applied to service family accommodation.
The amendment goes beyond acknowledging the problem of setting targets. It would establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation and their families. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and the amendment would be a vital step towards making that a reality. It would ensure accountability. It would provide service families with the basic standards that they have every right to expect.
I urge the Committee to support the amendment. After all, it is only right that our service personnel and their families live in safe, clean homes that meet basic, dignified standards, especially when they risk their lives to keep us safe. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak particularly to Amendment 251 in my name. I wholeheartedly agree with all that was said by the right reverend Prelate, and if we were able to his agree to his amendment now—the Minister could nod her head if that is about to happen—then we could bring an end both to what I am going to say and, dare I say, to some speakers on the next two amendments as well. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment would cover it all.
In the, I hope, unlikely event that that does not happen, I will speak to Amendment 251, which seeks to extend the decent homes standard to include asylum accommodation. In doing so, because I am going to speak with particular reference to the situation in London, I must again declare my interest as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I spoke at Second Reading of the extensive evidence from London borough councils about the poor standards of asylum accommodation, particularly in London but by no means exclusively there. Many of the things that I said then and will say again today apply to too many other parts of the country. London boroughs have reported issues of low-grade temporary accommodation properties, with multiple category 1 hazards, leaving the private rented market and being procured by Home Office accommodation providers.
The Minister has received a letter from London Councils, signed by the lead spokespeople of all three parties on that body and the chief executive officer of the Chartered Institute of Housing, asking that the Government consider how the Bill can ensure inclusion of Home Office accommodation within its provisions to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the same protections that all private and social renters receive. In her response, the Minister agreed to discuss these issues with the Home Office. I am grateful to her, as is London Councils, for arranging a meeting between officials and London Councils to discuss this in more depth. I understand that that meeting has now taken place, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister what conclusions she has drawn from those discussions and, more particularly, what action is now to be taken.
Extensive feedback from London local authorities has consistently highlighted evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation. As we know, enforcement action is slow and all too often ineffective. There is also widespread concern, not just from London Councils and not just in London, that not including Home Office accommodation will inevitably result in a two-tier system in which a small minority of rogue landlords may be incentivised to procure poor-quality accommodation for use as asylum accommodation.
In Committee in the other place, the Government argued that extending the provisions of the Bill to asylum accommodation is unnecessary. I hope and believe that we have come a long way from that now, and that the Minister is convinced by all the evidence she has had from those working in the system that all is far from well. Clearly, there are practical difficulties of implementation to be resolved, but if there is a will then there is a way to do so. Including asylum accommodation in the provision of the Bill would be a strong incentive; not doing so would inevitably have the opposite effect. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s positive response.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendment 252 in my name and those from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, for whose support I am most grateful. The right reverend Prelate’s observations, drawn from experience, were extremely valuable. I also thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for her earlier support for this amendment.
This amendment simply brings the homes that caravan dwellers rent within the scope of the Bill and is surely uncontentious. It is still not generally realised that, for the Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, who keep to their traditional—and legally recognised—way of life, a caravan which is their residence is as much a residence as any other dwelling and should be eligible for the same legal protection. The owners of such caravans should respect the decent homes standard as much as for any other rented dwelling, and, in many cases, this is sorely needed.
I know of a case where a new Gypsy and Traveller site, built only four years ago, was from the day the family moved in infested by rats, frequently flooded and subject to damp, mould, slugs, trip hazards, faulty electrics, a broken boiler and sewage back-up across the site. This had terrible effects on the family’s physical and mental health. Childhood asthma returned and medical treatment was needed. I remind the Committee that Gypsies and Travellers have the worst health outcomes of any minority ethnic group, and this example shows one reason why.
All these health and safety hazards were the result of structural issues in the rented amenity block and site as a whole, for which the site owner was responsible. The family contacted the site owner in over 50 emails over the years and went through the formal complaints process. When they contacted the Housing Ombudsman, they were told that cases concerning the management of Gypsy and Traveller sites were not investigated. Does that not make it clear that there is a lack of effective protection for families living on Gypsy and Traveller sites? Why should they not have equal protection and equal status with other renters? I know my noble friend the Minister understands this and I hope she will accept the amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 252A. I guess I am still learning about this Committee, because all the speakers have been exceptionally generous, saying that they support all the amendments in this group—perhaps they have not read my amendment, which excludes a certain number of properties from the decent homes standard. I think it is also fair to say that the only other amendment in this group that I actively support is that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
On Armed Forces accommodation, I ran some surgeries, because I was pretty appalled at the state and operations of the property arm of the Ministry of Defence, which contracted two different suppliers but did not seem to have a grip on what was going on. The change that happened nearly 30 years ago is, in hindsight, regrettable. It is why the previous Administration initiated the process, which I congratulate the Government on completing. One of the strategic changes that should help families in the Armed Forces is the move towards lifetime basing. This applies to the majority of our Armed Forces, although not specialist regiments like 23 Parachute Engineer Regiment—based just outside Woodbridge—which necessitate quite a number of people in rotation. Our Armed Forces, of course, deserve the best. There is nothing more concerning than somebody who is abroad thinking not only about the key strategic or tactical role they are playing but also the state of their loved ones’ housing back at home.
My Amendment 252A is driven by my concern about how, in effect, the policy of requiring EPC level C certificates for all private rented property risks removing many homes from the private rented sector across the country, particularly in rural areas. On applying the decent homes standard, EPC legislation, or the required minimum standards on energy efficiency, does not legally apply to social housing; instead, there is a target that is set which is expected to be met. We are now seeing a situation where the decent homes standard, which currently only applies to social housing, is going to be applied to the private sector. That is in a broad sense a good thing, but I am particularly concerned about aspects of it that will drive landlords out of the market and the effect on rural communities.
According to a survey conducted by MHCLG last summer, there are about 2.6 million homes that do not meet EPC level C and have a rating of D or lower. That is 60% of the private rented sector, so this is concerning. I completely understand the need to address fuel poverty; in the other House I founded the APPG on fuel poverty. I was particularly focused on off-gas grid, which of course covers a lot of rural communities, but also inner cities such as Manchester, Salford and the other areas represented by the right reverend Prelate.
We should bear in mind that the MHCLG currently estimates that 10% of those properties cannot in any way be upgraded to reach EPC level C. That still leaves 90%, but the challenge now is the variation in what is going on to upgrade those homes, some of which could require significant investment. Where it is reasonable—and by that I mean the amount of investment needed to make the adjustment—we should of course try to ensure that these properties are suitably warm. That would be helped if pensioners still had the winter fuel allowance and did not have to worry about whether they heat or eat. We must look at how we can address that without losing the housing capacity that is available.
Under the current regulations, there is a £3,500 cap on required investment to make the changes to get to the current minimum level E. As I say, I support the ambition to head that way, but now the proposed policy being consulted on is for a £15,000 cap on required investment, below which there would be no exemption. Let us get practical. I appreciate that the Minister may not be prepared for my question, but it should be considered by her department: what rural assessment has been conducted on this? It is standard government policy to undertake what is often known as rural-proofing when considering policies that will impact rural communities. I am genuinely concerned about that and about the possibility that the proposals for changing the methodology on ascertaining the EPC level will have a significantly detrimental effect on rural communities right across the country.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 252A in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which would exempt certain buildings from an EPC requirement. I hope that noble Lords were listening to what she said, because it is absolutely true: the methodology used for assessment of EPC is not foolproof. As my noble friend said, the assessment seems heavily weighted against older buildings, and while she referred to early 20th-century buildings, a decent proportion of houses in this country are from the 18th and 19th centuries. They have even greater problems: for instance, double-glazing is required as one of the ways to achieve EPC C. Many 18th-century and 19th-century houses have shutters, which, when closed at night, do a similar job, but that is not part of the assessment. Many such houses are in rural settings, so what my noble friend said is so true.
My noble friend alluded to the variation in assessment of EPCs by different assessors. As an experiment on one property that we own, we got two separate assessors in—they did not know that they were being tested against each other—and, you guessed it, each of them came up with a different EPC grade. That is a real problem; the assessment needs to be sorted out. I think it was in the newspapers that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Mr Miliband, had a similar situation, with two different assessments.
On listed buildings, there has been a lot of campaigning by various organisations. You cannot take out 18th-century and 19th-century sash windows and replace them with double-glazing—at least, you can, but it completely ruins the look of the building. A number of people prefer to live in a house which looks nicer but might need a little more heating or a log burner.
As my noble friend said, the Bill is very likely to result in the law of unintended consequences. Many houses will be sold and lost to the rental market, and that will create for this Government and this country an even bigger problem. After the Second World War, some landlords—not that I would want to do this—even took the roofs off their houses so that they were no longer houses.
Finally, I am sorry, but I want to speak against Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. If we are to apply the decent homes standard to asylum accommodation, I am afraid that that has to be last in the queue while we sort out the accommodation for our own people in this country.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, a number of speakers have driven home in detail the problems of rural areas with old buildings. The choice is quite simple: we either continue with the existing exemptions or knock down about a third of them and start again. Can the Minister tell us which it is going to be?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tope’s Amendment 251, which I have also signed. We have all spoken of the support we give this Bill because it offers the opportunity to address the problems and injustices suffered by renters in the PRS, which is the most insecure, most expensive and lowest quality of any tenure. However, the Bill fails to recognise that certain vulnerable groups of tenants suffer disproportionately, as we have heard, and need special measures to give them the level playing field they need to be able to live in suitable accommodation that is fair, reasonable and secure in the private rented sector.
Refugees and asylum seekers are just one such group, and their housing experience is in need of radical reform. My noble friend’s amendment, suggesting that the decent homes standard should apply to housing for refugees and asylum seekers, offers an opportunity to move forward.
However, the asylum housing system in the United Kingdom leaves tens of thousands of people in inadequate accommodation, where they often live for years in conditions that significantly undermine their physical and mental well-being. The current outsourcing of asylum housing to private companies has created a system that is marked by significant issues, including exorbitant costs, excessive profit making, substandard housing, and inadequate safeguarding and oversight. I read in the Sunday Times this week that the owner of one such company, Clearsprings Ready Homes, is now a member of the Sunday Times rich list as a result of rapidly expanding contracts from the Government at the taxpayer’s expense.
These providers need to be properly accountable. Refugee organisations report appalling conditions and many incidents of poor, unsafe and cold properties with infestations and mould. It should therefore form part of contracts with providers that the decent homes standard should apply to properties that are paid for by government. Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund substandard accommodation and providers are not being sanctioned. Many of those who are obliged to live in such misery are children, forced to live in virtual isolation and incarceration with housing conditions that are woefully inadequate for their needs. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment and call on the Minister to reflect on this situation. If she is unwilling to amend the Bill, can she say what the Government are proposing to do to resolve the desperately pressing circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers and the housing crisis that they face?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on the decent homes standard and its potential application across a broader range of accommodation types. As we have heard, the Bill introduces new powers for the Secretary of State to specify additional standards for qualifying residential premises, which offers the potential to raise housing quality and improve conditions for tenants across England. This is, in principle, a welcome ambition, particularly if it helps to extend protections to the most vulnerable in our housing system.
We must recognise the dignity of all residents, regardless of tenure. However, while the intention behind these amendments is laudable, it is vital to interrogate the practicalities and the legal impact of such proposals. For instance, how would the Government define “qualifying residential premises” in the context of asylum accommodation, where providers may be delivering services under a Home Office contract rather than under tenancy agreements? What enforcement mechanisms are appropriate in temporary or institutionally managed housing? Where would the burden of compliance ultimately fall?
We must also examine the legislative implications for landlords and housing providers, particularly those operating on constrained margins. Applying a uniform standard across such a diverse landscape of housing may sound straightforward in principle but in practice it could impose significant compliance costs, particularly in sectors such as mobile home parks or supported houses, where the business model and the regulatory framework already differ markedly from the private rented sector.
Stakeholders such as G15, representing London’s largest housing associations, have raised these very points, urging caution in implying one-size-fits-all approaches and stressing the importance of clarity, resourcing and consultation. Similarly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned of the unintended market disruption that could follow from ambiguous or overly broad standards, particularly if applied unevenly or without sufficient support for implementation.
Amendment 252A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to exempt certain buildings from the requirements to maintain specified energy efficiency criteria, specifically those in rural areas, those that are listed buildings or those that were constructed prior to 1900. This raises an equally critical set of questions. As we have heard, many older and listed buildings simply cannot meet modern EPC targets, such as EPC C, without intrusive and costly works that may fundamentally alter their structures or even their appearance. The amendment, therefore, is a measured and proportionate intervention designed not to weaken the decent homes standard but to ensure that it is applied with practicality and flexibility where needed.
Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and coherent framework in place for assessing which tenures and building types should fall under the decent homes umbrella and whether, without such a framework, we risk creating legal uncertainty or burdens that will ultimately be passed on to tenants themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Whitaker and Lady Coffey, for their amendments on the decent homes standard and standards within the private rented sector. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Scott, for their comments in this group. Let me say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate’s words about the decent homes standard and how dramatically that has improved homes in the social rented sector.
Amendment 249, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, would remove the power that allows Ministers to specify in regulations what types of temporary homelessness accommodation the decent homes standard will apply to. People living in temporary accommodation deserve a safe and decent home. I therefore agree with the right reverend Prelate’s aim of ensuring that such accommodation meets minimum decency standards. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention that as much of this sector as possible is covered by the decent homes standard—I feel really strongly about this. I was told by the Mayor of London last week that one in 21 children in London are currently in temporary accommodation; that is probably more than one in each classroom of children. It is absolutely shocking that this is the case. Of course, the long-term answer is our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We have already invested £2 billion in making a start to help towards that situation.
However, it is important that I say that the pressures on the supply of temporary accommodation mean it is important that we carefully consider how we apply the standard to this sector. Having this power allows us fully to examine these issues and to consult. That will make sure that we strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risks to supply. I am of course very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate on this issue, because we all want the same outcome. For now, however, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 250, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, seeks to bring service family accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence within the scope of the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill. I certainly agree with her that the conditions of much of the service family accommodation that we inherited were absolutely shameful. I strongly agree that we owe our dedicated military personnel and their families safe and decent homes. However, as the Minister set out when this amendment was debated in the other place, bringing this accommodation within the scope of the enforcement system established by the Bill is not the right way to achieve this. I will explain why.
Our Government are determined to deliver homes fit for heroes. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has recently completed a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership—the deal that the noble Baroness referred to. This represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide service families with a better standard of accommodation while contributing to our economic growth mission and boosting British housebuilding overall.
Alongside this deal, the MoD has started work on a new defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, to deliver a generational renewal of military housing. In April, the MoD announced a new consumer charter for forces family housing, which will form part of the strategy. The charter will introduce consumer rights for forces families, from essential property information and predictable property standards to access to a robust complaints system.
On standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation. Homes below that standard are not allocated to service personnel and their families. The MoD uses its own higher defence “decent homes plus” as the target standard for service family accommodation. As part of the new strategy, the MoD is reviewing that target standard in line with the recommendations of the excellent Kerslake review that the noble Baroness referred to and the House of Commons Defence Committee.
On the specifics of the amendment, we consider that the approach we are taking in the Bill to apply and enforce decent homes for privately rented homes is just not the right one for service family accommodation. There are particular challenges in bringing accommodation within scope of local authority enforcement, including access to the more than 6,500 homes that are located “behind the wire” on secure sites.
The Government are already taking action to ensure that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve, as part of our commitment to renewing the contract with the people who serve us. By regaining ownership of military housing, we will now be able to embark on a substantive programme of redevelopment and improvement, which will enhance recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and, with it, our national security. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, has set out his commitment to improved military housing and will report to Parliament later this year, when the defence housing strategy is published. Given this, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that her amendment is not required.
Amendment 251, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would extend the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill to Home Office asylum accommodation. This would require such accommodation to meet the decent homes standard requirements and increase the scope for enforcement by local authorities. A number of noble Lords raised this issue during the Second Reading debate. Following that debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned, officials from both my department and the Home Office met London Councils and the Chartered Institute for Housing to discuss their concerns. I can assure the Committee that the Government share the objective of ensuring asylum accommodation is of a good standard. However, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to achieve this.
There are already robust processes in place in respect of standards for all types of asylum accommodation. The contracts that the Home Office has with accommodation providers explicitly include standards requirements based on the decent homes standard, as well as the Welsh quality homes standard and the Scottish housing quality standard. Those contracts, including the standards requirements, are publicly available to view on the GOV.UK website. There is also a clear complaints process in place. Inspectors inspect the properties on a targeted and rolling basis.
There are also several reasons why the amendment would not be appropriate to bring asylum accommodation within scope of the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill. First, these provisions introduce the decent homes standard for privately rented homes in England only, whereas there is asylum accommodation across the United Kingdom. Accepting this amendment would therefore result in a fragmented system, with different standards requirements and enforcement systems applying depending on where in the United Kingdom the accommodation was based. The Government wish to avoid this.
In addition, we wish to avoid situations in which requirements to comply with the decent homes standard would mean that certain types of asylum accommodation could no longer be used, even if there was no alternative. For example, we want to end the use of hotels over time, but it is sometimes necessary to meet the legal duty to accommodate destitute asylum seekers. That accommodation might not meet the decent homes standard requirements, such as full-board hotels where there are no kitchen facilities for asylum seekers to use themselves. I appreciate that they are certainly not ideal for families seeking asylum, and they would not meet the decent homes standard. Standards requirements already apply to asylum accommodation, and there are adequate routes of redress for occupants when things do go wrong. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
Amendment 252, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, seeks to bring rented mobile homes within the scope of the decent homes standard provisions. While I am sympathetic to the aims of my noble friend, I cannot support this amendment, as the decent homes standard is not suitable for mobile homes. The decent homes standard has been specifically designed to apply to residential buildings. This is integral to the design and operation of the standard. For example, the housing health and safety rating system, the assessment method that underpins parts of the standard, was specifically developed to assess health and safety risks in buildings. As a result, it is not possible to apply and enforce effectively the decent homes standard in respect of types of accommodation that are not buildings. This amendment would therefore not achieve the desired outcome of improving the quality of rented mobile homes. I am, of course, happy to discuss further with her how we might seek to achieve what she has been trying to achieve for many years. Given this, I ask my noble friend not to press her amendment.
Finally, Amendment 252A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would limit the breadth of the decent homes standard as it applies to the private rented sector. We will be launching a consultation on the content of the decent homes standard for social and privately rented homes in the coming months. We will consider carefully the responses before finalising the detail of the standard. The regulations we will make to implement these requirements will then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure.
I acknowledge that the PRS is a diverse sector with a broad range of differing housing types, and some may have features that, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, mentioned, make it very difficult to meet certain aspects of a decent homes standard. We want landlords to take reasonably practicable steps to bring their properties up to standard, but we will not unfairly penalise those who are unable to do so. The legislation we are introducing will therefore provide local councils with a range of enforcement tools to respond to different circumstances. We will publish statutory guidance to support councils in dealing with such issues in a pragmatic and proportionate way that is fair both for tenants and for landlords.
Accepting the amendment would result in different standards applying to different types of PRS homes, which would make it harder for tenants and landlords to understand what requirements apply, and more challenging for local authorities to enforce. As I have stated, the legislation will provide local authorities with flexibility, and we consider that this will provide a more effective and fairer way of dealing with situations when a property cannot realistically meet the standard.
As I am the MHCLG Minister with responsibility for net zero, I have a lot more information on how we intend to operate EPC and the minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with a lot more detail rather than take up the Committee’s time tonight. But on that basis, I ask her not to move her amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been characteristically good natured and very well informed, and I am very grateful in particular for the way the Minister has responded to the various amendments in this group.
Because we are going to have a rather late night tonight, I will not say too much at this stage. I wish to respond to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I did not speak to her amendment in my introduction because I did not understand it in the form in which it appeared on the Marshalled List; I am very grateful to her now.
I guess I should declare an interest: my daughter lives in a pre-1800 former gamekeeper’s cottage in a very rural part of Devon. She is not a tenant because she managed somehow to negotiate a very favourable mortgage rate with “the bank of mum and dad”, with which I think many of your Lordships will be very familiar—all too familiar, I fear. I understand the complexities of trying to get that cottage up to anything like a decent environmental standard, so I have great sympathy.
The noble Baroness mentioned in particular the Church of England’s land. The Church Commissioners, which I chaired in succession to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, until about 15 months ago, currently has a development land portfolio sufficient for about 30,000 homes, and we would like to develop that out to make more homes for people to live in. We recently set up a group that I am now the chair of, the Church Housing Association, which was registered with the regulator about six weeks ago. It is looking to utilise more Church land, particularly land owned by parishes and dioceses, in order to produce more social housing, particularly housing at social rent level, across the country. I am hoping to meet with Homes England and others in the near future to progress that. My own diocese is going through a very determined process of evaluating all parsonages, selling the ones we do not need and investing the money in improving the ones we are going to keep. So I hope the noble Baroness will agree that this is the right way to take these matters forward.
I am very grateful for all that has been said tonight and I look forward to meeting the Minister to further some of the conversations we have had. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90 of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—“(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and(b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 254 and, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendments 267, 268 and 269.
Amendments 253 and 254 would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing is an important tool for improving housing standards because it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments in this important debate concerning property licensing. This discussion touches on a particular practical part of the regulatory framework: how local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes for rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality.
The amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens that they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments 253 and 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speak to the role of selective licensing in improving housing conditions and propose to extend the maximum duration of these schemes.
We already have selective licensing. UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions, as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with noble Lords across the House both to get the balance right and to ensure that the Bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing, particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence of anti-social behaviour.
However, we must also ask: are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? In the right circumstances, licensing can help drive up standards, but, if it is poorly targeted or applied too broadly, it risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and placing costs on good landlords while doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a tool for real enforcement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing Amendments 267 to 269, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. They are pragmatic and draw on my noble friend’s extensive experience in both government and housing policy. They propose more proportionate licensing fees in large blocks, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated bulk applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their amendments relating to selective licensing, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his absence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments.
Amendment 253, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to use selective licence conditions to improve housing conditions. We acknowledge and share the noble Lord’s intentions to improve housing conditions. We believe that all renters deserve to live in safe, secure and quality homes. With the introduction of a decent homes standard and the application of Awaab’s law through this Bill, the Government will reform and improve conditions across the sector. We think it is important that these measures benefit all renters and local authorities in tackling poor-quality homes, regardless of whether they are in selective licensing areas.
Amendment 254, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to increase the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10 years. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government recently removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. We think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes provided that they meet the statutory criteria. However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes to make sure that they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. A maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, while also ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendments.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 267 seeks to streamline the selective licensing application process and cap the total fee that local authorities can charge for licensing similar properties in a block under single ownership. The Government recognise that selective licensing imposes a burden on landlords. The financial and administrative cost can be particularly significant for large portfolio landlords, such as those operating in the build-to-rent sector.
Local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence applications and fees for landlords whose properties meet the requirements for block licences. Where appropriate and consistent with the aims of their licensing schemes, we would encourage local authorities to make greater use of block licences. This reduces the burden on large portfolio landlords and can better reflect efficiencies for local authorities in licensing such properties, for example, the ability to inspect multiple properties in a block during a single visit.
It is right that licensing schemes continue to be determined locally and that local authorities have the flexibility to decide the best application process and fees to support delivery of schemes. Placing a cap on application fees could cause issues due to regional differences in costs between local authorities and potentially undermine the success of some schemes.
Amendment 268 seeks to allow the transfer of selective licences in circumstances where the licence needs to be passed to an employee of the same corporate body. As noble Lords will be aware, under Section 91 of the Housing Act 2004, licences currently cannot be transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. A new licence application is needed where a change to a licence-holder is required after a licence has been issued. A crucial part of the application process is ensuring compliance with the fit and proper person test. This is designed to ensure that prospective licence-holders do not pose a risk to the welfare of tenants. I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Young, but accepting this amendment might mean circumventing those important checks for any new licence-holders within the same organisation.
I accept that it may seem excessive for a local authority to require a full licence application to be submitted where a licence needs to be transferred due to changes in staff in cases where there are no other changes to the management or use of the property. We would encourage local authorities to take a proportionate approach in these cases, for example, by requiring only details of the new licence-holder to be provided in the application and charging a fee that covers only the essential parts of the application process, for example, the fit and proper person test.
Amendment 269 seeks to allow a local authority to grant a temporary exemption from selective licensing to an applicant where it has determined that it requires more time to process the relevant licence application. I recognise the issues this amendment attempts to address. Where a local authority has received multiple licence applications from the same applicant, it needs sufficient time to review them. As a result, applicants may receive a decision after the period they deem reasonable. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about digitisation of this process and making the whole process more efficient.
Local authorities are already required to determine all licence applications within a reasonable time. We would encourage them to set out clearly their expected processing timelines when inviting applications. When planning a licensing scheme, local authorities should also carefully consider the level of resources needed to process applications to avoid large backlogs being created.
However, regardless of any challenges a local authority may face in processing licence applications, landlords with licensable properties should apply for licences. This ensures that they are protected from enforcement action being taken against them for having control of or managing an unlicensed property. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press his amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full explanation. I think the best course of action would be to review in Hansard what she has said and look at ways in which we might progress some of these issues by the time we reach Report in a few weeks’ time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 253.
Member’s explanatory statement
This replaces a reference to the improvement notice with the correct reference to the prohibition order.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an amendment to section 33 of the Deregulation Act 2015 that is not necessary as a result of paragraph 68 of Schedule 2, which repeals this section.
Lord Cromwell
“Illegal evictions: police and local authority duties(1) Where a police force or local housing authority in England receives a complaint alleging that an offence or offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (‘PFEA offences’) has been committed, it must—(a) notify the local housing authority (where the complaint has been received by a police force) or the police force (where the complaint has been received by a local housing authority) (‘the other party’) with responsibility for the area to which the complaint relates, and(b) co-operate with the other party to promptly and effectively investigate the alleged PFEA offence(s) and any offences committed at the same time, in furtherance of, or as a consequence of, the alleged PFEA offence(s).(2) Where a police force or local housing authority receives an allegation that PFEA offences are being committed or at risk of being committed, it must take reasonable steps to prevent those offences continuing or being committed, including, but not limited to, by cooperating with the other party and by taking reasonable steps to assist tenants to regain access to properties from which they have been unlawfully evicted. (3) The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue joint statutory guidance as to how police forces and local housing authorities are to discharge the duties in subsections (1) and (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the poorest end of the rental market by removing ambiguities between police and local authorities, clarifying police duties (illegal evictions often incorrectly seen as civil) and enabling efficient information sharing.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for adding their names in support of the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who cannot be here at this time, but who has authorised me to say that he both supports the principle of the amendment and believes that it is deliverable in practice. Given the role of the police in this amendment, his assessment and support have been invaluable. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the urgent need for this amendment, and to the Bill team for working their magic in drafting.
At Second Reading, I underlined concern about those at the bottom end of the rental market; here are the economically and socially vulnerable. They are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are also often the least equipped to resist illegal evictions. It is this shadow private rented sector, the lowest part of the rental market, that most needs help and, in particular—as so often with the legislation that we like to pass in Parliament—needs proper support through effective and well organised enforcement of renters’ rights in what can be a wild world of criminal landlords who pay little mind to the niceties of tenancy agreements when removing tenants. That is what this amendment seeks to address.
Illegal eviction is defined in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as a criminal offence—it was referred to earlier this evening by the Minister as a serious criminal offence—that can include physical force, the changing of locks, depriving renters of essential services, and other forms of interference and harassment. Figures from 2022 show that 8,750 illegal evictions were reported in that year; the actual number will, of course, be higher than this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, earlier cited a figure of about twice that. However, currently prosecutions for illegal evictions are very low. The police do not act in 91% of cases, making an enforcement rate of below 0.3%. I underline that this is not to blame the police; rather, it arises from a legislative ambiguity that needs resolving.
While the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 set out the legal definition of illegal eviction as a criminal offence, it did not include a duty on the police to enforce the protections. The results of this have been, first, ambiguity of responsibility between local authorities and police as to which is the enforcing agency. This, in turn, has led to councils and police each referring renters to the other organisation. Secondly, the police have almost always held the incorrect belief that illegal evictions are a civil matter.
The amendment also takes into account the need to be realistic about overstretched police time and resources. The duties under this amendment have two aspects: reporting and intervening. On reporting, in the interests of joined-up working, the police will notify the local housing authority when a complaint has been made, and vice versa, when a complaint is received by the housing authority.
The immediate anxiety here is to avoid imposing an additional reporting burden on front-line officers and officials. But any incident raised with the police or the local authority gets reported, or it certainly should. That report can simply be electronically copied to the other so that both can be aware, spot patterns and so forth. So it is not really “more flipping paperwork”, because adding a cc to a report is not really very onerous.
Lord Best (CB)
I shall confine myself to two sentences, because the exposition from my noble friend covered the ground so admirably. I can only imagine the nightmarish, Kafkaesque scene whereby a family is being turned out of their home and call the police, who, if an officer turns out at all, take the side of the landlord, who is committing a criminal offence. What seems badly needed is the clear statutory guidance proposed by this amendment, coupled with the instruction that prevention of cruel and illegal evictions by landlords has to be grounds for both co-ordination and intervention by the relevant police force and the local housing authority working together. I support this amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I want to scratch lots of bits out, since the noble Lord, Lord Best, was so succinct.
Amendment 258 is in the name of Lord Cromwell and has notable signatories, and the noble Lord sold this amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed, if the police and local authorities did their jobs correctly, as per the law, as outlined in the Protection from Eviction Act. This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening but we know is not. The already mentioned organisation, Safer Renting, monitored data from its clients over a given period, which revealed that, when the clients were going through an illegal eviction, and while it was in progress they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of cases did the police actually go to the property and assist the tenants. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, in 91% of cases they either failed to turn up, or turned up and sided with the landlord.
Interestingly, so concerned was Safer Renting about these statistics that it decided to do something about it. To its credit, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA, it developed a training course for officers. Approximately 8,000 officers took the training but, sadly, this did not mean it recorded any significant improvement when talking to its clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here.
As has already been said by several noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction—or, indeed, what constitutes criminal offences—and, most importantly, that they co-operate with the local authorities charged with the role of prosecuting these rogues and criminal landlords. Shockingly, that is not always happening. Safer Rentings’ illegal eviction count for England and Wales in 2022-23 showed 8,748 illegal evictions—that is one every 67 minutes.
It is not necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it is crucial for them to understand the law both to refer them to the local authority and to co-operate with the authority’s investigations. We support this amendment, but we hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not needed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence; it is not simply a housing matter but often a brazen abuse of power that leaves some of our most vulnerable renters without recourse. That said, we have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, having asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, his views on it.
In essence, the amendment would place a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is received, to co-operate in investigating the offence and to take reasonable steps to assist the tenant. The intent here is understandable —tenants report illegal evictions and are, as we know, bounced between bodies, with the police saying it is a civil matter and councils struggling with limited capacity. Although the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well-meaning, we just have to pause and ask whether it might inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than resolving it.
Without clear definitions, the proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to co-operate and assist opens the door to operational ambiguity. What exactly constitutes “reasonable steps to assist”, and what measurable outcomes are expected from this co-operation? Without these clarifications, there is a real risk of creating more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect.
We also want to be very careful about the practical burdens. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages. This amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing the underlying issue of capacity. Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this?
There is great merit in the principle behind the amendment—namely, the need for clearer co-operation and more decisive enforcement—but there are significant questions about whether, as drafted, it achieves that aim in a proportional, workable manner.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I ask the Minister: is the guidance clear enough, particularly to police forces, that it is an illegal act and it is against the law? Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? Do local authorities have clear guidance about looking after the tenant, which is their responsibility if they have been evicted and they are homeless at the time? Can this not be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCLG to try to embed the guidance that is already there and insist that both organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendment and for meeting me to discuss it. The amendment would place a duty on local authorities and police forces to share information regarding alleged offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott. Local authorities and police forces would also have a duty to co-operate in the investigation of these offences and take steps to prevent offences from occurring or continuing, as well as assisting tenants to gain access to properties from which they have been illegally evicted. The Secretary of State would be required to produce statutory guidance outlining how these duties would be discharged.
The Government are clear that illegal eviction is unacceptable. Changes introduced in the Bill will further empower local authorities to penalise those who illegally evict, giving them the option to issue a financial penalty of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Illegally evicted tenants are also entitled to receive a rent repayment order. Local authorities will be provided with new investigatory powers alongside the powers that police forces have to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
However, I am concerned about the administrative burden that a reporting duty might place on police forces. The department is trialling approaches to improving multi-agency targeting and the disruption of rogue and criminal actors operating throughout the private rented sector. For example, Liverpool City Council’s private sector housing intelligence and enforcement taskforce—a snappy title, I know, but it does what it says on the tin—has successfully carried out joint operations with Merseyside Police and the Home Office. The Government will continue to explore how we can encourage more effective collaboration between the police and local authorities.
I am happy to add this topic to the agenda for the meeting that I have already agreed to with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and Safer Renting, and to take another look at the existing guidance to make sure that it does what it needs to do. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions.
I do not want to detain the Committee too long, but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding her comments on co-operation and working it out in detail, that we found, in trying to specify every detail of what would go into the database, that it is much better to let the two responsible bodies work it out for themselves. They are grown-ups and they can work that out.
With regard to it being a further duty on the police, it is not a further duty but an existing one; it clarifies what they are supposed to be doing. I do not want to pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, too much in his absence, but he certainly felt that that was a realistic thing that they could deliver without their resources being too stretched.
Sharing information and co-ordination is something that we ought to be able to take for granted, but it is a “nice to have”. The really important bit is that they intervene when people are being illegally evicted and that the police take that responsibility firmly on themselves. That is currently not the case, because they still have this ingrained idea that it is a civil offence, not a criminal one, which is incorrect.
That said, I am grateful to everyone for their comments. I look forward to the meeting. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet the tenant groups, which are passionately convinced that this amendment is essential. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Energy Act 2011”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives authorities the power to use this data to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I will move Amendment 259, a three-word amendment that provides argument for the value of explanatory statements. As this explanatory statement says, the addition of “Energy Act 2011” would give local authorities
“the power to use this data”—
about home energy efficiency—
“to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards”.
As we have discussed often on this Bill, many renters are stuck in cold, damp, leaky homes. Sometimes there are very simple and cheap fixes, such as adding or topping-up loft insulation. Sometimes they are more complicated and challenging fixes, such as insulating solid wall properties. This amendment gives local authorities the power to obtain and use energy efficiency information to help private renters. This could allow housing officers to support tenants in the most poorly insulated homes or, importantly, it could support councils to develop the street-by-street insulation programmes that can bring economies of scale and support widespread installation of insulation.
The case study is quite an old but lovely one. In Kirklees, a Green councillor, Andrew Cooper, was one of the driving forces behind a street-by-street insulation programme. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, claimed credit for it, which may be the first time that we have seen a Green achievement being so claimed. I saw reports on how that worked out afterwards. One of the things that really came through was how much people are concerned about cowboy builders, which might be true of landlords as well as tenants, but that they trust their local authorities. That street-by-street process works well, but to make that happen you need the data. That is what this modest amendment is designed to achieve. It builds on the positive Clause 134, which will give local authorities more data to support tenants and take enforcement action against failing landlords.
Given the hour, I will leave the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to explain Amendment 274, which is related to this. I hope that the Minister can set out—briefly, given the hour—how the Government plan to ramp up support for domestic energy efficiency, especially for private renters. As we have just heard, so many are in vulnerable situations. Given the cost of living crisis, this is often seen as an environmental measure, but it is a crucial anti-poverty measure. We need to make this as easy and simple for local authorities to achieve as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a previous chair of Peers for the Planet and a director of that organisation. I will speak to my Amendment 274, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who cannot be in the Chamber this evening. It continues the theme of energy efficiency that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just spoken about on her Amendment 259. She dealt specifically with the issue of data on energy efficiency. I wish to contribute particularly on the issue of financing energy-efficiency measures. This is the first time that I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, mainly because of my interaction with the Minister and her officials in the run-up to it, during which several issues were clarified very helpfully.
The issue of improving energy efficiency in the private rented sector has been discussed at length and on multiple occasions in this House. I hope that the current consultation will go some way to address the lack of coherent and consistent long-term policy certainty in this area, because it has suffered from stop-go and from changes of administrations and forms of assistance that have been incoherent and stopped us making progress. Of course, one of the main issues preventing progress in this area is funding, so my amendment seeks to break through some of the barriers to progress by requiring the Government to publish a road map on how private finance initiatives could be scaled up to support the funding of energy-efficiency measures.
Other speakers in the Committee have pointed out the problems that exist because of the quality of the stock in the private rented sector. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointed out, nearly half the housing stock in the private rented sector has an EPC rating below C. Although fuel poverty has fallen 35% among owner-occupiers and 54% among council tenants since 2010, it has fallen only 4% for private renters. Their homes are still disproportionately damp and cold, causing both short- and long-term health issues, with higher bills adding insult to injury. Of course, this is an issue where we should take action not only because of the need to help people in this situation but because of the detrimental effects this has on our achievement of net zero and improving our energy security.
However, while there has been widespread agreement about the value of improving energy efficiency, finance has always been an obstacle to progress. The costs of improving the quality of housing will be substantial, as others have said, given where we are starting from, and it is not realistic to expect the Government to foot the bill in its entirety, nor to put intolerable burdens on landlords. We need to find a way to finance these improvements that will work for tenants, landlords and the public purse. I recognise that the Government are doing some work on this and looking at how barriers can be overcome. The green home finance accelerator fund, due to end in June, has a number of projects looking specifically at rented properties and a number of pilot schemes. I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government plan to take in response to what they are learning from the experience of the fund and to what timetable they will be working.
There is also a growing number of innovative private sector finance mechanisms that deserve serious attention. As the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association recently reported, the high upfront costs of installing energy-efficient technologies remain the biggest challenge for landlords, and ensuring that there is private capital to support this process, and investment to help drive down the costs of energy efficiency, is paramount. To meet this challenge, a number of policy proposals have been made that my amendment would prompt the Government to consider. The UK Green Building Council, for example, has proposed a warm home stamp duty incentive, where stamp duty would be adjusted up or down depending on the EPC of a property and a rebate would be triggered within two years of purchase if the energy efficiency of the home had been improved.
The Local Government Association has recently recommended that the Government should incentivise landlords through tax rebates. France has added energy efficiency improvements to the list of deductible costs of managing a property, such as legal fees or insurance. Within the UK, Scotland has introduced low-interest loans for landlords. Such loans could be linked to the property, rather than the individual, for which there is the precedent of the interest-free loans that were available to install renewables.
Property-linked finance has been deployed in several other countries, and these are all measures that deserve serious consideration by the Government. They could cut through the Gordian knot of all agreeing that a great deal needs to be done but no one being able to see how it could be financed.
I hope that when the Minister responds, she will provide a little more detail on the Government’s thinking in this area, particularly on ways of incentivising landlords and how the Government intend to make progress in an area about which much has been said but too little has been done.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments and generating this debate. We on these Benches support both amendments. Every renter has the right to a warm and energy-efficient home as part of a decent standard of living. Improving energy performance in private rentals not only is vital for tenants’ comfort and reducing fuel poverty but contributes to the all-important climate target.
I thank the LGA for its briefing. It is concerned about how enforcement will be enhanced to ensure that minimum energy-efficiency standards in the PRS are upheld. As we know, the sad reality is that some landlords continue to let out inefficient, poorly insulated properties, leaving tenants with high energy bills and cold homes. Indeed, tenants in the private rented sector living in the least efficient homes are paying as much as an additional £1,000 a year on their energy bills, compared with someone living in a relatively energy-efficient home. As we heard in previous discussions, an expansion of the rent repayment orders to cover situations where a landlord lets a property that fails to meet the minimum energy-efficiency requirements would mean that if a landlord breached energy standards, for example by renting out a property below the legal EPC threshold, the tenant or council could apply for an order to reclaim up to 12 months’ rent, which we think will be a powerful deterrent against non-compliance.
Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is an extremely useful step towards the ultimate goal of making homes warmer and more sustainable. It proposes a clear government strategy to unlock private finance, for example with green loans or incentive schemes for landlords to retrofit insulation and efficient heating. It makes me a little nostalgic for something that we think was an excellent model, but it was on a wider infrastructural basis. I refer to the Green Investment Bank, which was introduced in the early days of the coalition Government. The National Audit Office praised it for having a clear rationale, mission and objectives, backed by sound oversight. The then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the NAO and the Institute for Government all concluded that it had largely been successful in scaling up the UK’s green investment during its early years. It invested £3.4 billion into green projects, attracting £8.6 billion of private capital—a healthy £2.50 of private investment for every £1 of public money. Its portfolio was expected to deliver a 10% return by 2017. Sadly, in 2015, the Conservatives flogged it off and that 10% return was not realised. I would love to be able to tempt the Minister to look at that model as a really interesting way of pulling in investment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for recalling the excellent Kirklees Council scheme. I think it was the local authority with the largest number of retrofitting and insulation projects. It was award winning. I would not want to miss the opportunity of mentioning that my noble friend Lady Pinnock was then leader of Kirklees. It drew on finance that it received for an infrastructure project; it decided to insulate across every tenure in the largest local authority area. I believe that it is still the largest local authority area, unless anyone wants to correct me.
These remain excellent examples of how facilitating investment in measures such as insulation, efficient boilers and double glazing, the Government can ensure that landlords have the means to comply with higher energy requirements rather than simply exiting the market or passing the costs on to their tenants. We therefore welcome this proposed roadmap and data collection and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and reduced fuel poverty but, as we discussed earlier this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way that does not force older, rural and heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the Energy Act 2011. As the noble Baroness has established, that Act provided obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to tenants.
Clause 134 already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than was previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment would therefore extend the already expanded remit of Clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency. We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the Minister.
However, I question the necessity of the amendment. The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, made under the Energy Act 2011, already provide for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities in the case of domestic private rental properties and by trading standards in the case of non-domestic private rental properties. Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2011 Act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5,000 for any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given the powers that already exist and the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the Government plan to implement, this amendment appears unnecessary.
A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, supported by my noble friend Lady Penn. This amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private rental sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand, as opposed to any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, for their amendments relating to minimum energy efficiency standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I think described herself as the Green night owl—the noble Baroness Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for contributing to the debate.
I turn first to Amendment 259 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the Energy Act 2011, including enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. I reassure the Committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard of an EPC rating of E.
In February, a consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes that local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with the new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. To respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders, including local authorities.
Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. A local authority may issue a compliance notice to a landlord suspected of breaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply, the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. Of course, I recognise the value that data plays in aiding enforcement, which is why we have widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 274, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes within six months of the passage of the Bill. I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The Government have pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer, cheaper homes. In February, we published our consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales. The consultation closed on 2 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to publish a government response later this year.
I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rented sector to meet the proposed energy-efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their property. I believe that the amendment is not necessary as the information on support, including private finance to fund energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes, will be available shortly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who has taken part in this short debate, which was marked by a remarkably strong degree of agreement. Everyone agrees that home energy efficiency is something on which we really need to take vital action. I was reminded of a stat, which I learned probably a dozen years ago, that British homes were, in terms of energy efficiency, the second worst in Europe, behind Lithuania. I am not quite sure how Lithuania has done in those 12 years since then, but I know that we have made very little progress.
I will briefly pick up a couple of technical points. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the Minister both talked about local authorities having enforcement powers or, indeed, enhanced enforcement powers. But you can take enforcement only when you have the information—the data—that enables you to know when to take action. Just guessing which might be the homes that are not great is not a really effective way to proceed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the Lib Dem support for this amendment and also for embracing Kirklees. Everyone wants to embrace Kirklees, and really where we want to get to is a situation where we can embrace every town and city in the country with the same kind of project, particularly with those street to street-type arrangements.
I have one final comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about long-term policy certainty, which reminded me of going—I think it was in 2012—to the Insulate UK presentation. It was the insulation industry’s annual expo, and the whole industry was shutting down because the funding had disappeared. That boom-bust, boom-bust has been an enormous problem. We have not mentioned this yet, but, of course, we are talking also about huge numbers of opportunities, particularly for small independent businesses in every town and city up and down the land, if we find the funding and if we find the data and the push to make it happen.
I reserve the right to come back to this to look technically at the details, but in the meantime, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) in subsection (5)(a), omit “known), and” and insert “unoccupied), or;””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow the 24 hours’ notice requirement for an inspection under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 to be served solely on the property’s occupier.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am grateful for the help of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which has worked with local enforcement teams in my diocese to help us get to this amendment.
Local enforcement will be vital to making the intention of the Renters’ Rights Bill a reality, including the extension of the decent homes standard. However, an amendment to the power of entry that councils are going to use to enforce that standard is needed so that negligent or criminal landlords do not get a tip-off of inspections in advance, which would allow them to frustrate that process or to put pressure on the tenant. Enforcement officers would never tip off the proprietor of an off-licence in advance of an under-age mystery shopper trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes but, as currently drafted, this Bill will require enforcement officers to give landlords a 24-hour tip-off for any formal inspection of compliance with the decent homes standard.
The power of entry under the Bill comes from Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. It is completely appropriate to give notice to the occupier—I mean, it is their home; they are probably the one who made the complaint that led to environmental health officers or enforcement officers wanting to come round to have a look at it—but why on earth do we give the landlord that 24 hours’ notice? Indeed, we know already from what enforcement officers tell us that, where there is a requirement to tip off landlords, it allows criminal landlords to take lawful countermeasures. These include things such as forcibly removing tenants from an overcrowded property, pressuring tenants not to let enforcement officers into their home or taking retaliatory action, which can dissuade tenants from pursuing complaints. They can also prompt them to withdraw complaints; indeed, there is every reason why a tenant may not want the landlord to know that they have made a complaint at this early stage of the process.
Finally, I would urge that focusing the notice requirement on the occupier is consistent with equivalent enforcement legislation. For example, council enforcement officers’ powers of entry under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 include no requirement to give notice to a property’s owner.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I see that she has just left us—I am not a night owl: should it get to midnight and I am still here, these fine ecclesiastical robes will, like Cinderella’s dress, turn to rags. I trust that we can have an effective but brief debate on what is, I think, a simple and clear proposal. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a timely and sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment on powers of entry into properties. Of course, there is a fine line here: we are trying to balance landlords’ rights to know what is going on in their properties, especially regarding enforcement, with the rights of the occupiers of the property to be informed when powers of entry are being exercised by enforcement authorities.
The amendment would remove the current requirement for a notice to be provided to both the owner and the occupier of the property before the authority can exercise any power of entry under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. This would mean landlords not having to be told that their property is going to be entered for survey or examination. I would argue that the owner of the property should have the right to be informed both that their property will be investigated by enforcement authorities and that the authority will exercise its power of entry into the property. This is the case as things stand now, and I believe that that is how it should remain.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for his Amendment 260 and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. This amendment to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 seeks to enable local authorities to inspect PRS properties without the need to give 24 hours’ notice to property owners where the property is unoccupied, while retaining the notice requirement for tenants.
Section 239 currently requires local authorities to provide 24 hours’ notice to owners—if known—and occupiers before an inspection can take place. We are aware that the current requirement to provide property owners with 24 hours’ notice enables some unscrupulous landlords to hide evidence of breaches of PRS legislation, intimidate tenants and obstruct inspections. We recognise that the current notice requirement may, in some circumstances, hinder local authorities’ ability to address tenants’ unsafe or hazardous living conditions effectively.
While we are supportive of any efforts to improve local authorities’ ability to enforce against rogue landlords and appreciate that this amendment is in support of that objective, we must carefully consider its implications. We will continue to have conversations with the right reverend Prelate and with stakeholders, and we welcome noble Lords sharing their views on this matter so that the Government can take them into consideration. For these reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this has been exactly the brief debate that I was hoping for on this matter. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for exercising restraint. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her response, and I look forward to continuing those conversations. We have time before the Bill is finalised to get this right, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Thornhill
“Review on impacts of the Act on private rented sector(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of this Act on the private rented sector.(2) The review must, in particular, assess the impact of the Act on—(a) the supply of housing in the private rented sector,(b) rent levels and affordability,(c) the security of tenure for tenants,(d) the regulatory and financial burden on landlords, and(e) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant. (3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) representatives of tenants and landlords,(b) local housing authorities, and(c) any other persons or bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.(5) The report must include—(a) the findings of the review, and(b) any recommendations for legislative or policy changes the Secretary of State considers necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 263 is in my name, and was kindly signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. My noble friends Lady Janke and Lady Grender will speak to their own amendments in this group, and we will all aim to be brief due to the lateness of the hour.
All through every day of this Committee, there has been a series of common threads, regardless of the groupings. One such thread is the uncertainty of the impact on the supply of homes to the private rented sector. We have had claims and counterclaims, but the reality is that no one knows exactly what will happen yet, because this is a genuinely radical Bill. A sub-theme, if I may call it that, has been the plea throughout the Bill’s passage for various aspects of it to be reviewed. My amendment tries to pull these concerns together and seeks to provide an honest, full and all-embracing review to be presented to Parliament no later than two years after the passing of the Act.
Two years seemed like a long enough time to gather data and see trends, but not too long to make changes, if it were apparent that changes needed to be made. The proposals in the Bill are so far-reaching, the legalities complex and the regulations as yet largely unknown and awaiting guidance or agreement through secondary legislation. But the impact of them could, we hope, be extremely positive and change the rental market for the better—or it could be a total disaster. We have certainly had plenty of hyperbole and tub-thumping rhetoric to that effect. Maybe it will simply be somewhere in between: the curate’s egg.
This amendment tries to cover all the important key indicators. As the explanatory statement says, it
“requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years”
of the Bill’s enactment. It also helpfully suggests who might be consulted upon, but—also helpfully—it includes the option for whomsoever is deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State.
I do not think it would be helpful at this time of night to expand on why each of these things is extremely important, but we know that they are, and that is why they are listed in the amendment. For that reason, we would like to see this, or something very similar, on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, having been extremely brief on everything, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence on this issue, which is extremely important. I sincerely hope we make a bit of progress on it. I want to thank the Renter’s Reform Coalition for their very hard work on this amendment, indeed, on the whole of the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who strongly supports this amendment but is unable to be here tonight.
While this was debated on Report in the House of Commons in terms of its drafting, the original proposal was ruled out as not in scope of the legislation. Therefore, this is a new draft to reframe it as a review of the impact of the Bill on rents. The amendment has been redrafted in response to that feedback. To be clear, according to the Renter’s Reform Coalition, the likely projection of increase in rents as a direct result of the Bill is limited to the net core cost to landlords of £12 per home per year or 0.1% of mean annual rents. I will explain why rents continue to be a problem in spite of whatever the impact of the Bill is likely to be according to the coalition.
This amendment proposes that the Secretary of State must within 18 months of passing the Bill establish a body to report on the impact of the Act on rent levels in the private rented sector. A report published under this proposed new clause would include an analysis of any changes in average rent levels, an overview of the historic affordability of properties and consideration of proposals for improving the affordability of properties. The report should also include characteristics such as age, income and employment status.
Some of the context will be very clear to noble Lords. Private tenants have the highest weekly housing costs of any housing tenure, with lowest income tenants in particular often spending huge proportions of their income on rent. On average, renters spend 34% of their household income on housing, compared to 19% for mortgagors and 26% for social renters, and high rents hit poorer tenants hardest. One in three private renters spends at least half of their monthly household income on rent alone. Nearly 30% of private renters struggled to pay their rent in 2022.
England’s rent burden as a share of disposable income is among the highest in Europe. An analysis from Generation Rent has shown that not a single borough of inner London is affordable for roles across education, healthcare, social care, construction, retail, commerce and hospitality. Recent data released by Zoopla shows that renting a new home is on average £270 per month more expensive than in 2021, meaning that rents have increased by more than £3,000 annually in just three years. An increase in housing affordability would enhance the Government’s objective of driving growth. New research from the Mayor of London, London Councils, Trust for London and G15 shows that a 1% increase in housing affordability in this city could yield a boost of £7.3 billion in economic output over a decade. This research clearly showed that worsening housing affordability has a negative impact on productivity.
We welcome the fact that the Government are ending the bidding wars, but without also including something that acknowledges the issue of rent—and this is a very small version and modest in terms of what it does to the Bill—rents will remain too high across the board, and there will be no measures within the Bill to tackle that issue, or the current measures will be limited.
The amendment stipulates that any report made would need to include proposals for improving the affordability of rent levels in the private rented sector, but it does not prescribe what those policies should be. A report of this nature is an invaluable opportunity to consider the factors that make renting increasingly unaffordable and measures to address these factors in the round. Undertaking this thorough assessment of this complicated issue will take time, given the various intersecting factors that are contributing to the unaffordable nature of renting.
The report could consider: supply and demand in the private rented sector; the role and long-term future of the local housing allowance; the shortage of social housing; the effects of various kinds of rent control and stabilisation measures in comparator nations; an assessment of the potential impact of introducing any kind of rent measures—our preference would be for rent smoothing, as we have discussed several times, not rent controls; any impact on rent prices since the passing of the Act; and other relevant factors. In other words, this is not about being prescriptive but about studying all the impacts on rent. The impact report proposed in this amendment would provide an ongoing mechanism for acknowledging the scale of the affordability crisis. It would provide an opportunity for the Government thoroughly to assess the available evidence on unaffordability in England.
This amendment, as I have said, would not commit the Government to any one policy or approach but aims to gather evidence, data and information in a way that we do not believe is currently sufficiently gathered, and neither does the Renters’ Reform Coalition. It is also an opportunity for the Minister to commit publicly to further considering how to bring rents down in relation to incomes. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but this amendment is simply seeking to strengthen what the Government are already trying to do to improve the private rented sector. Without this piece, there is something very substantial missing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 273 would require, within 12 months of implementation, a report on the impact of the Bill on BME and ethnic groups. I thank Race on the Agenda and Shelter for their briefings.
The private rented sector has the highest number of ethnic minorities relative to other tenures—23% compared with 19% among social renters, and 8% among owner-occupiers—yet black renters are disproportionately faced with barriers that prevent them securing a home in the sector compared with white renters. Generation Rent’s 2024 survey of private renters around the UK revealed that minority-ethnic renters were significantly more likely to face obstacles in accessing new tenancies. Racial minority respondents were almost twice as likely to have been refused a tenancy when they attempted to move home, with 12.5% reporting this experience compared with 6.3% of white British or Irish renters. Some 7% of England’s population are BME, yet in June 2024 20% of homeless households were BME; 8% of households living in poor conditions were BME compared with 3.5% identified as white households.
It is well-documented that black and minoritised groups experience both income and wealth inequality. This makes it much more difficult for these groups to cushion the shocks of rent increases or large deposits, pushing them deeper into problem debt with the associated mental health difficulties that that brings. Measures in the Bill, such as banning discrimination against people on benefits and families with children, should help reduce discrimination against BME groups, as will the ending of the bidding up of rents and the constraints on upfront payments. These are also positive measures.
I will end with a comment from Race on the Agenda.
“We note that although some provisions are made in the Bill to address housing discrimination in general terms, there is a problem as the Bill has not conducted a full racial impact assessment and does not sufficiently include robust measures to tackle racial discrimination in housing and homelessness”.
I hope that, in the light of this, the Minister will embrace the need for the review set out in this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group and introducing her Amendment 263. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.
We on these Benches do not support reviews for the sake of reviewing. They often consume time and public funds, and require precise delivery in order to answer the questions they set out to answer. However, this legislation poses a significant risk to the market. Noble Lords from across the Committee agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they have access to secure, stable and decent housing at a fair price. We have been clear this Bill does not deliver that.
The Government must review the efficacy of the Bill and be held accountable for the decisions they have taken and insisted on. To achieve this, we need a functioning market with an adequate supply of good-quality homes to meet a growing demand. Ensuring the availability of homes is key to making accommodation attainable and keeping rents affordable. Any legislation in this area must strike a difficult but essential balance between these competing interests. Only by getting that balance right can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market. We, along with the many stakeholders we have consulted, believe that a review is necessary and that it should be brought before Parliament.
I am keen to know whether the Government are giving the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, serious consideration. Can the Minister say how the success of this Bill will be judged? What does success look like in the eyes of the Government?
In our view, the fear and uncertainty surrounding this Bill is already having a negative impact. On the first day in Committee, I quoted figures from Savills and I will underline them once more. According to Savills, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter 1 of 2025 is down 42% compared with the same period in 2024. That is 42% fewer homes for families, and 42% less choice for people searching for somewhere to live. If the Government are confident in the positive impact of this Bill, what reason does the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market, specifically its impact on the availability of rental homes, rent levels, house prices and the demand for social housing? If the Bill were to have a damaging effect on the rental market, surely Ministers would want to know.
Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning, accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and affordable home, and landlords leaving the sector altogether. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, for their amendments, which propose several different types of reviews to the future Act, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. I have to ask why we do not have a functioning effective rental market—we were not in government over the past 14 years.
Amendment 263, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector. This review would be conducted, and subsequently reported to Parliament, within two years following the Bill’s receipt of Royal Assent. In particular, it would require the review to consider the Bill’s impact on supply, rent levels, security of tenure and the burdens on landlords. It also prescribes that the Government must consult with representatives of landlords, tenants and local authorities during the preparation of such a review.
I know the Committee shares my interest in the practical impact that this legislation will have on the private rented sector. I reassure the Committee that this interest is at the heart of the Government’s commitment to monitor and evaluate robustly the impact of our reforms. Our approach will build on the department’s existing monitoring of the housing sector. Our process, impact and value for money evaluation will be conducted in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. Our monitoring work will make use of a range of data, including the results of the English Housing Survey, data from relevant stakeholders, including local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. We will also deliver an evaluation involving extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups. These will be conducted with a range of stakeholders, such as tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts service and government officials. Monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms will supplement these findings.
I can also reassure the Committee that the conclusions of our evaluation will be published in a timely manner, in line with our broader policy on the publication of research. This includes an interim evaluation report on the processes, early impacts and intermediate outcomes, which we will produce in the early years after implementation. I hope this gives the Committee confidence that the Government’s proposed approach to monitoring and evaluation is the right one. Setting an arbitrary deadline for this process, as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do, we believe represents an unnecessary step. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 270, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would mandate that the Secretary of State carry out a review of rent affordability in England, with a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This amendment would require this review to be wide-ranging, encompassing the affordability of rents across both the private and social sectors, the impact on tenants, and regional differences. It would also require specific assessment of the effectiveness of measures to control excessive rent increases and the uptake and outcome of the tribunal.
As I already noted, the Government are committed to very robust monitoring and evaluation of the private rented sector reform programme. We will also continue to monitor trends across the industry as a whole, using a range of data sources, which include the Valuation Office Agency rental prices data, the Office for National Statistics rental price index, and data from the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This will enable us to respond to unexpected impacts or unwelcome outcomes and initiate appropriate changes where these are needed.
Finally, Amendment 273, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to produce a report on the impact of the Bill once it is an Act on different racial and ethnic groups in the private rented sector. I have already outlined at length our broader plans for assessing the impacts of the Bill. Regarding specific impacts on racial and ethnic groups in the sector, the department follows the Ethnic Group, National Identity and Religion guidance published by the Office for National Statistics. Ethnicity statistics are regularly collected and published by the department about tenants and landlords to understand the demography of the private rented sector through the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This data supports our continued compliance with the requirements of the public sector equality duty and wider government responsibility by contributing to the race disparity audit.
It is also worth stressing that, in keeping with the public sector equality duty, once the Bill is an Act, Ministers will continue to have due regard to the equality impact of decisions on groups by reference to relevant protected characteristics. This includes the protected characteristic of race.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand the collection of the data, which I think is excellent so that we know what is going on, but how is that going to be scrutinised by Parliament? Will that come in a report? If it is, when will that first report come to Parliament for scrutiny?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will write to noble Lords confirming the policy on publication of research. I think it is a matter of publication and then for Members to call it forward if they wish to scrutinise it further.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. I am glaring at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because she filched one of the things I was going to say, but she is absolutely right—great minds think alike. Although we are coming at the Bill from completely different positions, we are agreed on this issue. Her summary of my Amendment 263 actually said it all as to why we feel we need something in the Bill.
If the Government are confident about the way they will monitor and evaluate, why not put something in the Bill? As for an arbitrary date, surely, after two years—bearing in mind that you can come back whenever you like within that period—you will have some indication of the trend. That is what is bothering us: the uncertainty and radical nature of the Bill, which we hope will be successful.
We reserve our right to come back to this issue, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is now 11.41 pm. We have made good progress scrutinising the Bill this evening, having completed 13 groups of amendments. We have three groups remaining. Given the hour, and as agreed by the usual channels, I will now resume the House, and we will return to complete the remaining three groups after Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill tomorrow.
I am grateful to all the staff of the House who have stayed so late to support us tonight, and on Monday. I particularly want to thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their work to facilitate proceedings. I greatly appreciate all the work they have done, along with that of the other staff of the House, including the clerks, doorkeepers, attendants, catering staff and Hansard reporters. I look forward to completing Committee on this important Bill.